You are on page 1of 11

Alejandrino vs.

Quezon [September 11, 1924]
Original Action in the Supreme Court Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts: CASCO Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs. GIMENEZ (February 28, 1963)
 The Petitioner in this original proceeding in mandamus and injunction is Jose
Alejandrino, a Senator appointed by the Governor-General to represent the 12th
• Petition for review of a decision of the Auditor General denying a claim for
senatorial district.
refund of petitioner Casco.
 February 5, 1924 – A resolution was adopted by the Philippine Senate depriving
• Pursuant to RA 2609 “Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law”, the Central Bank of
senator Alejandrino of all the prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of his
office for the period of one year from January1, 1924 having been declared Phil. (CBP) issued on July 1, 1959 Circular No. 95 fixing a uniform margin fee of
guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate 25% on foreign exchange transactions.
for having treacherously assaulted Senator de Vera on the occasion of certain • Many times between Nov & Dec 1959, Casco, (which is engaged in the
phrases being uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the manufacture of synthetic resin glues, used in bonding lumber & veneer by
credential of Mr. Alejandrino. plywood & hardwood producers) – bought foreign exchange for the importation
of urea and formaldehyde & paid the margin fee of P33, 765.42.
Issues: • In May 1960, Casco made another purchase of foreign exchange & paid
1. WON a Mandamus and injunction can be issued to the respondent to recognize P6,345.72 as margin fee.
the rights of the petitioner to exercise his rights as a Senator • Prior thereto, petitioner had sought the refund of the first sum of P33,765.42,
2. WON the Senate can suspend its members for a period of one year. relying upon Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board (MB) of said Bank
dated Nov. 3, 1959, declaring that the separate importation of urea and
Ratio formaldehyde is exempt from said fee. Petitioner made a similar request for
1. No refund of the sum of P6,345.72.
 General Rule: the writ of mandamus will not lie from one branch of the
government to a coordinate branch, for the very obvious reason that • Although CBP issued the margin fee vouchers for the refund of said amounts,
neither is inferior to the other. the Auditor of the Bank refused to pass in audit and approve said vouchers
 Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its members or its upon the ground that the exemption granted by the MB for the separate
officers, to compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their importations of urea and formaldehyde is not in accord with the provisions of
character which therefore pertains to their legislative functions and over Sec. 2, par. XVIII of RA 2609.
which they have exclusive control. • On appeal by petitioner, Auditor General affirmed said action of the Auditor of
the Bank. Hence this appeal.
2. No
 Organic Act authorizes the Governor-General to appoint 2 senators and 9 ISSUE: WON “urea” and “formaldehyde” are exempt by law from the payment of
representatives to represent the non-Christian regions in the Legislature. the aforesaid margin fee.
These senators and representatives hold office until removed by the
Governor-General. They may not be removed by the legislature. HELD: NO, decision appealed from is affirmed.
 The Senate and House of Representatives is granted the power to punish
its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3, RATIO:
expel an elective member. • Sec. 2, RA 2609: “The margin established by the MB pursuant to the provision
 The Constitution has purposely withheld from the Senate and House of
of Sec.1 hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the
Representatives and the Governor-General the power to suspend an
importation of the ff: ….XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of
appointive member.
plywood & hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-
 Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the outraged dignity of
the House without depriving the constituency of representation.
 Expulsion when permissible vindicates the honor of the legislative body • PETITIONER: “urea formaldehyde” should be construed as “urea” and
while giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect anew. “formaldehyde”
 Suspension deprives the electoral district of representation without that • However, whereas, urea & formaldehyde are the principal raw materials in the
district being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. By manufacture of synthetic resin glues, the Commissioner of Nat’l Institute of
suspension, the seat remains filed but the occupant is silenced. Science & Tech said: “Urea formaldehyde…is the synthetic resin formed as a
 Suspension for 1 year is equivalent to qualified expulsion or removal condensation product from definite proportions of urea and formaldehyde…”

Note: Writ of mandamus cannot be issued because the SC does not possess the
power of coercion to make the Philippine Senate take any particular action.
They learned that only 20 of the 25 were there & they learned the
• Hence, “urea formaldehyde” is a finished product, distinct and different from
aforementioned facts from Sese.
“urea” and “formaldehyde”, as separate articles used in the manufacture of the 5. Agents + Sese went to Pons’ place. They found 5 empty barrels. They
synthetic resin “urea formaldehyde” found empty tins, baskets of lime & 77 TINS OF OPIUM IN ONE OF THESE
• THE IMPORTANT PART: Petitioner contends that the bill approved in Congress BASKETS. No one was home then though they found clothing w/initials JP.
contained the copulative conjunction “and” between the terms “urea” and They later on learned that Mariano Limjap owned house, rented by F.C.
“formaldehyde”, & that the members of Congress intended to exempt “urea” & Garcia. Lease was signed FC Garcia by Pons.
formaldehyde” separately as essential elements in the manufacture of “urea 6. They returned to Beliso’s house & selected 3 barrels & ordered their return
formaldehyde”, not the latter as a finished product, citing statements made on to customhouse. Upon opening, they found large tins in each barrel
the Senate floor during the consideration of the bill therein. containing 75 small tins of opium. Large tins were similar to those found n
• SC: Said individual statements do not necessarily reflect the view of the Pons’ place.
Senate, much less do they indicate the intent of the House of Representatives. 7. Beliso was arrested & confessed participation in the smuggling of opium
• It is well settled that the enrolled bill – which uses the term “urea however, he claimed that those found w/Pons represented the entire
formaldehyde” instead of “urea” and “formaldehyde” – is conclusive upon the importation.
courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress & approved by 8. Pons was likewise arrested. He showed officers how to open barrels &
the President. pointed to marker at the end of barrel w/c indicated that such contained
• If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified opium. He further stated that he delivered 250 tins of opium from recent
shipment to a Chinaman on April 10 at 7:30 am. He admitted that he &
by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive – on which the Court
Beliso had been partners in several opium transactions. When asked re
cannot speculate w/o jeopardizing separation of powers – the remedy is by
ownership of the house in Gen. Solano, he claimed that he leased it, at
amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.
Beliso’s suggestion, to handle prohibited drug. When asked re FC Garcia,
Pons became a schizo: 1) Garcia was a tobacco merchant traveling bet.
UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee vs. JUAN PONS, defendant-appellant
Isabela & Cagayan. 2) Garcia’s a fictitious person. 3) Garcia is a wine
[Aug. 12, 1916]
merchant residing in Spain who wrote him a letter asking him to rent a
house & to retain it until he arrived in RP. Letter arrived along w/recent
*Facts are not really important. Focus more on the issues especially issue #2. 
shipment w/c he destroyed for fear that it would compromise him. He
further claimed that the letter informed him that opium was coming in
• Gabino Beliso, Juan Pons & Jacinto Lasarte were charged w/ crime of illegal
barrels of wine sent to Beliso by Lasarte & that is the reason why he
importation of opium (Act No. 2381). Lasarte had not yet been arrested. Pons &
wanted to get barrels of wine fr Beliso (ang coherent niya noh?).
Lasarte were both found guilty by RTC.
• Pons’ counsel appealed RTC decision invoking Act No. 2381, claiming that under
• April 5 or 6, 1915
which Pons must be punished if found guilty. He claims that such act is null &
1. Spanish mail steamer Lopez y Lopez arrived in Manila fr. Spain. Among its
void because it was passed after the allowable day of legislative session of Phil
cargo were 25 barrels manifested as wine consigned to/for Lasarte.
Legislature of 1914. Supposed last day was Feb. 28 (mandated by Gov Gen’s
2. Beliso, a wine merchant, delivered the shipper’s invoice & bill of landing for
proclamation) & according to counsel, session was stopped at midnight & act
the shipment to customs broker Gregorio Cansipit. These documents were
was passed after midnight or March 1, 1914. However, legislative journal
endorsed & signed by Lasarte ordering shipment’s delivery to Beliso.
indicates that statute was passed before midnight.
3. Barrels were delivered to Beliso’s warehouse in 203 Calle San Anton,
Manila. Beliso signed paper acknowledging delivery.
Issues & Ratio:
• Customs officials became suspicious because they have noticed that “wine”
1. WON court can take judicial notice of the journals in this case wherein
shipments have been consigned to persons who were not listed as merchants. there is a dispute re last day of Legislature’s special session w/c
They doubted nature of merchandise too. So they investigated. determines WON Act No. 2381 became a law. - YES
• April 10, 1915: they traced 25 barrels to Beliso’s warehouse. Their investigation • Act No. 1679: Sec. Of Commission (Phil Legislature later on) shall perform
revealed that: duties required of the Recorder of the Commission.
1. Delivery of barrels began on morning of April 9 at around 11 am loaded on
• Rules 15 & 16, Legislative Procedure of Phil Commission (PC): duty of Sec. To
bull carts.
keep a correct journal of proceedings of PC. Record proceedings briefly &
2. Before merchandise arrived, Pons went to the warehouse & spoke w/Beliso.
Pons left & afterwards barrel arrived & unloaded in Beliso’s warehouse.
3. Cornelius Sese: ordered by Beliso to deliver 5 carefully selected barrels to • P.793, Vol. 7, Commission Journal for 3rd Phil Legislature (PL) sessions: Journal
Pons at 144 Calle Gen. Solano. He did as ordered. for Sat., Feb. 28, 1914 approved. Adjournment sine die (w/o assigning day for
4. Customs agents arrived on Apr 10 before office was opened & they waited further mtg or hearing) of Commission as a Chamber of PL at the hour of
for Beliso. They arrested Sese who was already there. They separated the midnight on motion of Commissioner Palma.
barrels from the last shipment from other merchandise in the warehouse. • Above-mentioned journal was published in accordance w/ Act of Congress
approved July 1, 1902, sec. 7 of w/c orders publication of journal.
• Sec. 275 of Code of Civ. Procedure: official acts of exec, legis, & judic of US & duly signed/authenticated/certified by the officer in-charge of doing so. We cannot
PI shall be judicially recognized by the court w/o introduction of proof. Court rely on testimonies of other people based merely on memory. This is in accordance
may receive evidence when it shall find necessary for its own information & w/public policy.)
may resort for its aid to appropriate books, documents or evidence.
• Sec. 313, amended by Sec. 1 Act No. 2210, Code of Civ Procedure: official Held: Act No. 2381 is valid. RTC decision affirmed.
documents may be proved as (2) proceedings of PC/any legis body or of
Congress by journals of those bodies or by published statutes/resolutions or by Astorga vs. Villegas [April 30, 1974]
copies certified by clerk/sec or printed by their order. Provided that copies Original Action in the Supreme Court. Mandamus, injunction and/or
signed by presiding officers & sec of said bodies will be conclusive proof of the prohibition with preliminary mandatory prohibitory injunction.
provisions of such Act & due enactment thereof.
• US case State ex rel Herron vs. Smith: journals may be noticed by courts in
determining the ques whether a particular bill became a law or not. Facts:
• 1914 journals are not ambiguous or contradictory. PL was adjourned on  House Bull No. 9266 which was filed in the House of Representatives passed on
midnight of Feb. 28, 1914, sine die. 3rd reading without amendments
 It was sent to the Senate for concurrence and it was referred to the appropriate
2. WON courts can look beyond the journal to determine the actual date of Senate Committee, which recommended approval with a minor amendment
adjournment. - NO recommended by Senator Roxas. (instead of the City Engineer it be the
• Evidence: that w/c proves/disproves any matter in ques or to influence the President Protempore of the Municipal Board who should succeed the Vice-
belief respecting it. Mayor in case of the latter’s incapacity to act as Mayor.)
• Conclusive evidence: establishes the fact as in the instance of conclusive  When the bill was discussed on the Senate Floor, substantial amendments to
presumptions. Section 1 was introduced by Senator Tolentino, which amendments were
• In the case at bar, two opposing evidence are presented in order to prove the approved in toto by the Senate.
enactment of Act No. 2381. Pons’ counsel relies on mere memory/recollection  May 21, 1954 – Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to the House of
of witnesses while on the other hand, legislative journals are presented, w/c are Representatives that the House Bill had been passed by the Senate by the
act of the Gov’t or sovereign itself. Senate with amendments. Attached was a certification of the amendment,
• Legislative journals are as impt as those of the judiciary. Inquiring into their which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas, and not the Tolentino
veracity even if they are clear & explicit would 1) violate the spirit & letter of amendments which were the ones actually approved by the Senate.
the organic laws w/c brought Phil gov’t into existence, 2) invade a coordinate &  House of Representatives signified their approval.
independent dept of gov’t and 3) interfere w/legitimate powers & functions of  The printed copies were then certified and attested to by the Secretaries of
the legislature. Senate and House of representatives and the Senate President
• If Pons’ counsel is correct, resultant evil might be slight compared to that of  The bill with the Roxas amendments were signed by the president of the
altering the probative force & charac of legislative records & thereby making Philippines and it was subsequently named RA 4065
proof of legislative action depend on uncertain oral evidence, liable to loss by  It was later made public by Senator Tolentino that the enrolled copy of HB 9266
death/absence & so imperfect on account of treachery of memory. Verity & signed into law by the President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed
unimpeachability of legislative records have been established centuries ago in by the Senate and approved on the Senate Floor.
consideration of pub policy. If we take that away for 1 purpose, it must be  Senate President admitted the mistake in a letter to the President. As a result,
taken away for all & evidence of laws of state must rest upon a foundation less the president sent a message to the presiding officer of both houses that he
certain & durable than that afforded by law to many contracts bet priv was officially withdrawing his signature from HB 9266
individuals concerning comparatively trifling matters (Capito vs. Topping).  Mayor of Manila issued circulars ordering the disregard of the provisions of RA
• No case has shown that a court went beyond proceedings recorded in journals 4605. He also issued an order recalling 5 members of the city police who had
to determine whether a law has been adopted. Imperative reasons of pub policy been assigned to the Vice-Mayor presumably under the authority of RA 4065.
require that the authenticity of laws should rest upon pub memorials of the  Vice Mayor Astorga filed this petition with the court.
most permanent charac. Public – all are required to conform to them.  Respondents contends that RAA 4065 never became law since it was not the bill
Permanent – rt acquired today upon faith of what has been declared to be law actually passed by the Senate, and that the entries in the journal of that body
shall not be destroyed tomorrow or at some remote period of time by facts and not the enrolled bill itself should be decisive in the resolution of the issue.
resting only in memory of individuals. (State ex rel. Herron vs. Smith)
• US jurisprudence are applicable, there being no RP jurisprudence on this matter Issue:
& Phil Consti is modeled after US Federal gov’t & various states. Thus, journal 1. WON the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of
records w/c provide that legislature adjourned at midnight on Feb. 28, 1914 is a bill’s due enactment.
respected. 2. WON RA 4065 can be considered as valid in the absence of the attestation
(Main idea is that proof of legislative proceedings such as the enactment of laws required
should be based on recorded materials w/c come from the legislative body itself, Held
1. No police dept of any city and has held the rank of capt or its equivalent
 Senate President declared that his signature on the bill to be invalid and for at least 3 yrs OR any high school graduate who has served the
issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of his signature police dept of a city for at least 8 yrs w/ the rank of capt or higher.”
meant that the bill he had signed had never been approved by the Senate.
 This declaration should be accorded greater respect than the attestation At the order of Sen Francisco Rodrigo, the phrase “has served as officer in the
that it invalidated Armed Forces” was inserted for clarity so the last part of the provision was read as:
 Certification that was made by the presiding officer is merely a mode of “…OR any high school graduate who has served the police dept of a city
authentication or who has served as officer of the Armed Forces for at least 8 yrs w/ the
 The essential thing is the approval of congress and not the signature of the rank of capt or higher.”
presiding officers.
 Function of attestation is not approval because a bill is considered Petitioner insists that this version was the intended amendment that was approved
approved after it has passed both houses. by the Senate on the 3rd hearing and when the bill emerged from the conference
 Constitution does not even provide that the presiding officer should sign committee the only change made in the provision was the insertion of the phrase
the bill before it is submitted to the president. “or has served as chief of police w/ exemplary record.” To support his contention,
 Rationale of the enrolled bill theory – the signing by the speaker of the petitioner submitted certified photostatic copies of the diff drafts of House Bill 6951.
House of Representatives and by the president of the Senate, in open Acdg to the page proofs of the bill, the ff provision appears:
session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses, “No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless
through their presiding officers, to the president, that a bill, thus attested, he holds a bachelor’s degree from a recognized institution of
has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the learning and has served either the AFP or has served as chief of
government, and it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional police w/ exemplary record or the NBI or the police dept of any
requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. city and has held the rank of capt or its equivalent for at least 3
(Field vs, Clark) yrs OR any high school graduate who has served the police dept
 Enrolled bill theory – based mainly on the respect due to coequal and of a city or has served as officer of the Armed Forces for at least
independent departments which requires the judicial department to accept 8 yrs w/ the rank of capt or higher.”
as having passed Congress, all bills authenticate in the manner stated.
2. No However, he contends that this was changed only at the insistence of the House Bill
 Petitioner agrees that the attestation in the bill is not mandatory but he division1 and substitute bill of Sec 10 of Police Act of 1966 in its final form now
argues that the disclaimer thereof by the Senate President, granting that it reads:
to have been validly made, would only mean that there was no attestation
at all but would not affect the validity of the statute. Sec 10. Minimum qualification for appointment as Chief of Police Agency.
 The argument of the petitioner would limit the court’s inquiry to the No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds
presence or absence of the attestation and to the effect of its absence upon a bachelor’s degree from a recognized institution of learning and has
the validity of the statute served either the AFP or has served as chief of police w/ exemplary record
 Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer, and consequently or the NBI or the police dept of any city and has held the rank of capt or
there being no enrolled bill to speak of, what evidence is there to its equivalent for at least 3 yrs OR any high school graduate who has
determine within the bill had been duly enacted? In such case, the entry in served as officer of the Armed Forces for at least 8 yrs w/ the rank of capt
the journal should be consulted. or higher.”
 The journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments were
introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were not It appears that the line “has served the police dept of a city” has been deleted or
incorporated in the printed text sent to the president and signed by him. omitted, whether deliberately or unintentionally, in the qualifications of high school
 Bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. graduates. Petitioner aims to show that such change was made not at any stage of
the legislative proceedings but only in the course of the engrossment of the bill, i.e.
Enrique Morales v. Abelardo Subido, in the proofreading stage. He further contends that such change was made not by
as Commissioner of Civil Service Congress but only by an employee thereof and that a rewriting was made only to
Motion for Reconsideration of SC decision (1969) suit some stylistic preference and it in result, altered the meaning of the provision.
It is for this reason that the petition seeks the judiciary to search into the matter.
Petitioner prays for judicial review in the act of amending of House Bill 6951. ISSUE: WON judiciary may/should look into the petition

The substitute bill of Sec 10 of House Bill 6951 reads: HELD: No. MFR denied.
“No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he
holds a bachelor’s degree and has served either in the AFP or NBI or 1
Petitioner also submitted a certified photostatic copy of a memoramdum w/c acdg to him was signed by an employee in the Senate bill
As per the enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the Phil Pres, it and that the doctrine of necessity which they perceive to be the foundation of
shows that Sec 10 is exactly as it is in the statue as officially published in slip form the questioned resolution does not rule out the solution they are proposing,
by the Bureau of Printing. The judiciary, as it is not part of its function, cannot go which is basically to amend Sec. 24 of SET’s rules of procedure which required
behind the enrolled Act to discover what really happened. the concurrence of 5 members for the adoption of resolutions of whatever
The respect due to the other branches of the govt demands that judiciary acts upon  The proposed amendment shall stipulate that where more than 4 members are
the faith and credit of what the officers of the said branches attest to as the official disqualified, the remaining members shall constitute a quorum, if not less
acts of their respective depts. Otherwise, it would cast in the unenviable and than 3, including 1 justice, and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with
unwanted role of a sleuth (detective) trying to determine what actually did happen no abstentations.
in the labyrinth of law-making, w/ consequent impairment of the integrity of the  In the case at bar, such amendment would leave the resolution of the contest
legislative process. This is a matter worthy of the attention not of an Oliver Wendell to the only 3 members who would remain, all Justices of the Court, whose
Holmes but of a Sherlock Holmes. disqualification is not sought.

The investigation w/c the petitioner would like SC to make can be better done in Issue: WON proposed amendment by petitioners may be allowed
Congress. The remedy in case of mistake in printing of bills is by amendment or
curative legislation, not by judicial decree. Held: NO. Petition for certiorari dismissed.
 The most fundamental objection to such proposal lies in the plain terms and
Moreover, in all cases, the journals must yield to the enrolled bill. The Constitution intent of the Constitution which created a SET and ordains its composition and
expressly requires what matters must be entered on the journal of each house. defines its jurisdiction and powers (Art. VI, Sec, 17)
However, with respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the  By providing for a SET to be staffed by both Justices and members of the
journal, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy. senate, the Constitution intended that both “judicial” and “legislative”
components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests
NOTES: US SC held that the signing by the Speaker of the House and by the Sen relating to the election, returns and qualification of Senators.
Pres of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the 2 houses that such bill has  It is more clearly signaled by the fact that the proportion of the senators to
passed Congress. And when the bill is thus signed by the Pres and deposited in the justices in the prescribed membership is 2-1.
archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed  The proposed amendment precludes the substitution of any Senator sitting in
complete and unimpeachable. (Marshall Field & Co v. Clark) the Tribunal by any of his other colleagues in the Senate without inviting the
same objections to the substitute’s competence, the proposed mass
ABBAS v. SET disqualification, if sanctioned and ordered, would leave the Tribunal no other
166 SCRA 651 (1988) alternative but to abandon a duty that no other court or body can
perform, but which it cannot lawfully discharge if the entire
Facts: membership of the Senators shall not participate.
 Oct. 9, 1987 – petitioners filed before the respondent Senate Electoral Tribunal  The framers of the Consti could NOT have been unaware of the possibility of an
an election contest against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were election contest that would involve all 24 Senators-elect six of whom inevitably
proclaimed senators elect on May 11, 1987 have to sit in judgment thereon, especially in 1992 when once more, but for
 Composition of respondent Tribunal: the last time, all 24 seats in the senate are at stake.
o 3 Justices of the SC: Yap, Narvasa and Guitierrez, Jr.  YET! The Constitution provides no scheme for settling such situation or for the
o 6 senators: Estrada, Gonzales, Guingona, Lina, Tamano, and Ziga substitution of Senators designated to the Tribunal whose disqualification may
 Senator Saguisag, respondent in election contest case, filed a Petition and be sought. Litigants in such situation must simply place their trust and hope of
supplemental Petition to Recuse Senators-members of the tribunal on the vindication in the fairness and sense of justice of the members of the Tribunal.
ground that all of them are interested parties to said case, as  However, every member of the Tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, refrain
respondents. from participating in the resolution of the case where he sincerely feels that his
 Nov. 17, 1987 – petitioners, except Estrada who affiliated with the Liberal personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective judgment
Party and thus replaced by Enrile, filed with SET a motion for disqualification or The Court is merely saying that, in light of the Constitution, the SET cannot
inhibition of the Senators-members of the SET from the hearing and resolution legally function as such, absent its entire membership of senators and that no
of the election contest amendment of it rules can confer to the three justices members alone the power of
 Senator Paterno, another respondent, filed his comment on both petition to valid adjudication of a senatorial election content.
recuse and motion for disqualification or inhibition.
 Memoranda on the subject were filed and oral arguments were heard by SET Bondoc vs. Pineda
and SET issued a Resolution (now complained of) denying both motions to September 26, 1991
recuse and to disqualify.
 The petitioners argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fair Introduction (of ponente Grino-Aquino, J)
play and due process imperatively require the mass disqualification sought
-Over a century ago, the SC of the US hesitated to embark upon a legal decision which was reached on a 5 to 4 vote in HRET Case. No. 25 may be
investigation of the acts of the other branches of the government finding it overturned on a motion for reconsideration by Pineda which would have been
“peculiarly irksome as well as delicate” (Marbury v. Madison). defeated. Justices agree with the “conscience vote” of Camasura. They find it
-In the past, the SC, head of the third and weakest branch of government was too difficult to continue their membership in the Tribunal when it is clear the unseating
willing to void political confrontations by succumbing to the political question of Pineda is being prevented at all cost thereby compromising the constitutional
doctrine (defined in Aguino v. Ponce Enrile, p. 795). function of the Tribunal. Justices suggested a return to the composition of the
-Duty of the Courts to look into the constitutionality and validity of legislative or Tribunal in the 1935 Constitution or the switch of jurisdiction between the Senate
executive action especially involving private rights was recognized. Responsibility of Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal – each
courts ascertain the two coordinate branches adhered to the mandate of the Tribunal sitting as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
fundamental law under Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution. This does not qualification of the members of the other body.
mean however that the courts are superior to the President and the legislature. -On March 13, 1991, the Tribunal issued Resolution No. 91-0018 cancelling the
promulgation of the decision in HRET Case No. 25. Tribunal reasoned that without
Facts: Camasura’s vote, the decision lacks the concurrence of five members as required by
-On May 11, 1987, during the local and congressional elections, Marciano Pineda of Sec. 24 of the Rules of the Tribunal to be valid. The three justices and
the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Dr. Emigdio Bondoc of the congressmen members of the tribunal also manifested their intention to resign in
Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival candidates for Representative of the Fourth the Resolution (p. 802).
District of the Province of Pampanga. Canvass of votes by the Provincial Board of -On March 19, 1991, the Court resolved to direct the Justices to return to their
Canvassers of Pampanga that Pineda (31,700) had a margin of 3,300 votes over duties. Court noted that the term of office of every member of the Tribunal should
Bondoc (28,400). be considered co-extensive with the corresponding legislative term and may not be
-On May 19, 1987, Pineda was proclaimed winner in the election. Bondoc filed a legally terminated except only by death, resignation, permanent disability, or
protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET Case. No. 25) removal for valid cause, not including political disloyalty.
which is composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme -On March 21, 1991, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was filed by
Court and the remaining six are members of the HR chose on the basis of Bondoc against Representatives Pineda, Palacol, Camasura or any other appointed
proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or vice representative of Camasura praying, among others, to annul the decision of the
organizations registered under the party-list system (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 HR to withdraw the nomination and to rescind the nomination of Camasura to the
Constitution). The members of the HRET can be seen in p. 797. HRET (p. 803).
-On October 1990, a decision was reached where Bondoc won over Pineda by a -Pineda, contending for the dismissal of the petition, claims that Congress is the
margin of 23 votes. LDP members in the Tribunal insisted on an appreciation and sole authority that nominates and elects from its
recount of the ballots cast in some precincts which delayed the finalization of the members; those who sit in the HRET upon the recommendation of the political
decision for 4 months. However, in the re-examination and re-appreciation, parties has the sole power to remove any of them; that the Tribunal member’s term
Bondoc’s lead over Pineda increased to 107. of office in not co-extensive with his legislative term; the expulsion of Camasura is a
-On March 4, 1991, Congressman Juanito Camasura, Jr. because of candor and “purely a party affair” of the LDP”; that the membership in the HRET is a purely
honesty, revealed to Congresman Jose Conjuangco, Jr., LDP Secretary General, the political question beyond the reach of judicial review.
final tally in the Bondoc case and that he voted for Bondoc, member of the NP,
“consistent with truth and justice and self-respect” and to honor a “gentlemen’s Issues:
agreement” among the members of the HRET that they would “abide by the result (1) WON the HR is empowered by the Constitution to interfere with the
of the appreciation of the contested ballot.” disposition of an election contest in the HRET by reorganizing the
-On March 5, 1991, the HRET issued a Notice of Promulgation of Decision in HRET representation in the tribunal of the majority party.
Case No. 25. -NO. Under Sec. 17, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, the composition of
-On March 13, 1991, before the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, Cojuangco specifies the power of the Electoral Tribunal that is the “sole judge of all contests
informed Camasura by letter that the LDP Davao del Sur Chapter expelled him and relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective members.” But
Congressman Benjamin Bautista for helping organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo to be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the House Electoral Tribunal must be
“Danding” Cojuangco and for “a complete betrayal of the cause and objectives, and independent. Its jurisdiction must not be shared with the Legislature nor with the
loyalty to LDP.” Cong. Cojuangco notified Speaker Ramon Mitra about the ouster of Courts. Section 17 is taken from Section 11, Art. VI of the 1935 Constitution
the two congressmen from the LDP. except that the allocation of the representatives in the latter follows equal
-On March 4, 1991 the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mme. Justice Ameurfina M. representation from each of the first and second largest political aggrupations in the
Herrera was informed through a letter from the Office of the Sec. Gen. of the HR Legislature while former uses proportional representation from all the political
that the HR during its plenary session on March 13, 1991 decided to withdraw the parties. Both sections of the Constitutions uses the word “SOLE” which scores
nomination and rescind the election of Camasura to the HRET on the basis of the exclusive jurisdiction of the HET. It is a non-political body in a sea of politicians. The
letter from the LDP (p. 799). purpose of the tribunal is to provide an independent and impartial tribunal devoid of
-Justices Herrera, Cruz, and Feliciano informed the Chief Justice and Associate partisan consideration. Angara v. Electoral Tribunal stated that the Electoral Tribunal
Justices of the SC of the “distressing development” and asked that they be relieved is a body separate from and independent of the legislature and though not a power
from their assignment in the HRET. They wrote in the letter (pp. 800-801) that the in the tripartite scheme of government. Exchanges between Commissioners
Maambong and Azcuna in the 1986 Constitutional Commission attests to the void. Camasura is ordered reinstated to his position as member of the HRET. HRET
preservation of the independence of the electoral tribunal referring to the cases of Resolution No. 91-0018 cancelling the promulgation of the decision in HRET Case.
Vera v. Avelino, Angara v. Electoral Commission and Sanidad v. Vera (pp. 808-810). No. 25 (Bondoc v. Pineda) is also set aside. Considering the conscious delay of the
Under the 1935 Constitution, it was impossible for any political party to promulgation, the said decision is declared duly promulgated effective upon service
control the voting in the tribunal. The 1973 Constitution did not provide an of copies thereof on the parties, to be done immediately by the tribunal.
electoral tribunal in the BP.
Action of the HR is clearly violative of the constitutional mandate in Sec. DAZA vs. SINGSON (December 21, 1989
17, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution which created the tribunal as the sole judge
of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc. The resolution of March 13, FACTS:
1991 of the HR withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the election of Camasura
as member of the HRET is null and void. Bondoc is entitled for the relief he prays for
• After May 11, 1987 congressional elections, the HR proportionally apportioned
in this case. its 12 seats in the COA among the several political parties represented in that
chamber, including the Lakas ng Bansa, PDP-Laban, NP-Unido, Liberal Party
Reasoning of the Court: (LP), & KBL, in accordance with Art. VI, Sec. 18, of CONSTI.
1. Resolution of the House of Representatives violates the independence of • Petitioner Raul Daza was listed as representative of LP.
the HRET. • Sept 16, 1988: Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized,
-The independence of the HET so zealously guarded by the framers of the resulting in a political realignment in the HR.
Constitution would only be a myth or a farce if the HR or the majority party therein • 24 LP members resigned & joined LDP, swelling its number to 159 and reducing
may shuffle and manipulate the political (distinguished from the judicial) component LP’s membership to 17.
of the electoral tribunal, to serve the interests of the party in power. • On the basis of this development, the HR revised its representation in the COA
-The Resolution of the HR removing Camasura from the HET for disloyalty to the by withdrawing the seat occupied by petitioner & giving this to the newly-
LDP is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the HET to be the sole formed LDP.
judge of the elections contest between Pineda and Bondoc. • Dec 5, 1988: HR elected a new set of representatives consisting of original
-Sanctioning the interference would make the tribunal a mere tool of the party in members except the petitioner & including respondent Luis Singson as the
party (LDP) where the three justices and the lone NP member would be powerless additional member from LDP.
to stop. • Present action by petitioner: to challenge his removal from COA & the
2. Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of membership in assumption of his seat by respondent.
the HRET.
-As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They discharge their
• ART VI, Sec. 18, CONSTI: There shall be a COA consisting of the Pres of the
functions with complete detachment, impartiality and independence – even Senate, as ex officio Chairman, 12 Senators & 12 Members of HR, elected by
independence from the political party to which they belong. “Disloyalty to party” and each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties
“breach of party discipline” are not valid grounds for expulsion of a member of the & parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
Tribunal. HR committed grave abuse of discretion in expelling Camasura for having therein…
case a “conscience vote.”
3. Expulsion of Congressman Camasura violates his right of tenure. ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER:
-Members of the HRET are entitled just as members of the judiciary to security of 1. THAT he cannot be removed from COA because his election thereto is
tenure under Sec. 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution. Termination may only occur permanent as laid down in Cunanan v. Tan.
for a just cause such as the expiration of the member’s congressional term of office, 2. THAT the reorganization of the House representation in COA is not based on a
his death, permanent disability, resignation from the political party he represents in permanent political realignment because the LDP is not a duly registered
the tribunal, formal affiliation with another political party, or removal for other valid political party & has not yet attained political stability.
-Two justices in the Tribunal were changed before the congressional term but these ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT:
changes had no political implications and for valid reasons (Chief Justice Fernan was 1. THAT the question raised by petitioner is a political question.
elevated to the office of CJ and Justice Feliciano took a leave of absence to deliver a 2. THAT he (respondent) has been improperly impleaded, the real party
lecture in Yale University). respondent being the HR which changed its representation in COA & removed
-Judicial power was invoked by Bondoc for the protection of his rights the strong petitioner.
arm of the majority party in the HR. This is a duty of the Court “even when the 3. THAT nowhere in the CONSTI is it required that the political party be registered
violator be the highest official of the land of the Government itself” (Concurring to be entitled to proportional representation in COA.
opinion of J. Antonio Barredo in Aquino v. Ponce-Enrile).
Holding: Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus prayed for by Bondoc is 1. WON issue is a political question.
granted. The resolution of March 13, 1991 of the HR withdrawing the nomination 2. WON respondent has been improperly impleaded
and rescinding the election of Camasura as member of the HET is declared null and
3. WON the reorganization of the House representation in COA is based on a Jorge Tan was designated in his place. Cunanan contends that the rejection of
his appointment was null & void because the COA was invalidly constituted.
permanent political realignment because LDP is not a duly registered political
HELD: Court agreed with petitioner. The Allied Majority was a merely temporary
party & has not yet attained political stability. (*If based on a permanent
combination as the NP defectors had not disaffiliated from their party &
political realignment, reorganization of HR representation in COA can be done
permanently joined the new political group. They were still official members of
at any time)
NP. The reorganization of the COA was invalid because it was not based on the
proportional representation of the political parties in the HR as required by the
CONSTI. A shifting of votes at a given time, even if due to arrangements of a
1. NO, it is a justiciable controversy.
more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the formation of the
• What is involved is the legality, not the wisdom, of the act of HR in “Allied Majority” does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the
removing petitioner from the COA. membership of the COA for HR. Otherwise, the COA may have to be
reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House.
• Tanada v. Cuenco: Court was asked by petitioners to annul the election of
Consti framers could not have intended to place a constitutional organ, like
2 members of the SET, on the ground that they had not been validly COA at the mercy of each House of Congress.
nominated. Court held that what was involved was not the wisdom of the
Senate in choosing the respondents but the legality of the choice in light of • RESPONDENT: Cunanan case expressly allows reorganization at any time to
the Constitutional requirement on the membership of the SET. reflect changes in the political alignments in Congress, PROVIDED, that
such changes are permanent. The creation of LDP constituting bulk of
• Cunanan v. Tan: what is involved is the manner or legality of the
former PDP-Laban & to which no less than 24 LPs had transferred was a
organization of the CO, not the wisdom or discretion of the House in the permanent change, justifying his designation to COA. Cunanan v. Tan: “If
choice of its representatives. by reason of…their expulsion from the political party to which they
• Even assuming it is a political question, Court is not precluded from belonged &/or their affiliation w/ another party, the ratio in the
resolving it under its expanded jurisdiction. representation of the parties in the House is materially changed, the House
2. NO/IRRELEVANT  is clothed with authority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats
• While true that it is not respondent who caused the petitioner’s removal, in COA held by members of said House belonging to the political party
his objection is not an insuperable obstacle in resolving the controversy. adversely affected by the change & then fill said vacancies in conformity
with CONSTI.”
• Court may treat this proceeding as a petition for quo warranto as petitioner
is questioning the respondent’s right to sit as a member of COA.
• IMPT. SUPERVENING EVENT: Nov 23, 2989: COMELEC granted the petition
• Finally, as the Court held in the Emergency Powers cases, where serious of LDP for registration as a political party. Recall that petitioner heavily
constitutional questions are involved, “the transcendental importance to relied on the non-registration of LDP, which he claims has not provided the
the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and permanent political realignment to justify the questioned reorganization.
indefinitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.” • Petitioner’s contention that even if registered, the party must still pass the
3. YES. Reorganization of the House representation in COA is based on a test of time to prove its permanence is untenable. LDP has been in
permanent political realignment. LDP is considered to have attained existence for more than a year now. It has 157 members in HR & 6 in
political stability. Senate. Its titular head is the RP President, & its President is Sen. Neptali
Gonzales. Despite internal agreements w/n the party, IT SURELY CANNOT
• NOTE: Both parties invoked Cunanan v. Tan to support their claims. Thus,
the case was discussed at length.
• As for the other condition suggested by petitioner, that the party must
• Cunanan v. Tan: FACTS: In 1961 election for HR…
survive in a general congressional election, LDP has doubtless also passed
Seats Representation in the test. It now commands the biggest following in the HR. Besides, test
won COA was not laid down in Cunanan.
Nacionalista 72 8 SC: We resolve the issue in favor of the authority of the HR to change its
Party representation in COA to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire
LP 29 4 in the political alignments of its membership. Such changes MUST BE
independent 1 PERMANENT & do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions
Subsequently, 25 NPs professed discontent with House leadership & made not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation &
common cause with LP & formed the “Allied Majority” to install a new speaker permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another.
and reorganize the chamber. House representation was reorganized where 3 NP
congressmen were displaced by 3 of their party colleagues who joined the Allied
Majority. Petitioner Cunanan’s ad interim appointment as Deputy
Administrator of the Reforestation Admin was rejected by COA &j respondent
Coseteng v Mitra Jr. House of Representatives elected by each House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered
Facts: under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the Commission
Congressional elections of May 11, 1987 resulted in representatives from diverse shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments
political parties Petitioner Anna Dominique Coseteng was the only candidate elected submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The
under the banner of KAIBA. commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members. (Art. VI, 1987
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 The composition of the House membership in the Commission on Appointments was
affiliated with the LDP, the House committees, including the House representation in based on proportional representation of the political parties in the House. There are
the Commission on Appointments, had to be reorganized. Petitioner Coseteng then 160 members of the LDP in the House. They represent 79% of the House
wrote a letter to Speaker Ramon Mitra requesting that as representative of KAIBA, membership (which may be rounded out to 80%). Eighty percent (80%) of 12
she be appointed as a member of the Commission on Appointments and House members in the Commission on Appointments would equal 9.6 members, which
Electoral Tribunal. 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
On December 5, 1988, the House of Representatives, revised the House majority in the Coalesced Majority and the KBL (respondent Roque Ablan) as the principal
membership in the Commission on Appointments to conform with the new political opposition party in the House. There is no doubt that this apportionment of the
alignments by replacing Rep. Raul A. Daza, LP, with Rep. Luis C. Singson, LDP, House membership in the Commission on Appointments was done "on the basis of
however, Congressman Ablan, KBL, was retained as the 12th member representing proportional representation of the political parties therein.''
the House minority.
There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that the House members in the
On February 1, 1989, Coseteng and her party, filed this Petition for Extraordinary Commission on Appointments should have been nominated and elected by their
Legal Writs praying that the Supreme Court declare as null and void the election of respective political parties. The petition itself shows that they were nominated by
respondent Ablan, Verano-Yap, Romero, Cuenco, Mercado, Bandon, Cabochan, their respective floor leaders in the House. They were elected by the House (not by
Imperial, Lobregat, Beltran, Locsin, and Singson, as members of the Commission on their party) as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution. The validity of
Appointments, to enjoin them from acting as such and to enjoin also the other their election to the Commission on Appointments-eleven (11) from the Coalesced
respondents from recognizing them as members of the Commission on Majority and one from the minority-is unassailable.
Appointments on the theory that their election to that Commission violated the
constitutional mandate of proportional representation
Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales
1. WON the question raised is political. PETITIONERS: Teofisto Guingona and Lakas-NUCD
2. WON the members of the House in the Commission on Appointments were RESPONDENTS: Neptali Gonzales, Alberto Romulo and Wigberto Tañada
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties therein
as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. NATURE: Petition for Prohibition to prohibit respondents:
1. Romulo and Tañada from sitting and assuming membership of the Commission
Holding/ Ratio: on Appointments (C.A.); and
1. No, it is not. 2. Gonzales, as ex-officio Chairman of the C.A., from recognizing and allowing the
respondent senators to sit as members
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 Campos, Jr., J.
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 FACTS:
under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the • Senate membership after May 11, 1992 elections:
Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any Party Membership Proportional Tolentino’s
branch or instrumentality of the government." Representation Temporary
2. Yes, petition is dismissed for lack of merit. LDP 15 Senators 7.5 members 8 members
NPC 5 Senators 2.5 members 2 members
Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads: LAKAS-NUCD 3 Senators 1.5 members 1 member
"Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President LP-PDP-LABAN 1 Senator .5 members 1 member
of the Senate, as ex oficio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the
LEGAL BASIS: Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr.
• Based on proportional representation, each party has a claim to an extra half
• Romulo, as Senate Majority Floor Leader nominated 8 LDP members for 1. In the Senate, a political party or coalition must have at least two duly
membership in the Commission on Appointments elected senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments.
• Guingona and John Osmeña objected to the nomination of the 8th senator
2. Where there are more than two political parties represented in the
(Romulo) on the grounds that LDP’s representation should not exceed 7.5 Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate
members cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission.
• Arturo Tolentino proposed a temporary compromise to allow the 8 nominations
with the understanding that if the Supreme Court finds a party to be
overrepresented and another underrepresented, respective parties will REASONING:
necessarily adjust its representation: • Since the two houses do not vote separately but jointly, and usually along party
lines, the LP-LDP-LABAN would still be represented by Congressman Ponce
• Guingona filed the petition to prohibit the nomination of Romulo as the 8th LDP Enrile, who has become a member of the LP.
nominee and Tañada as the lone nominee from the LP-PDP-LABAN • Also, there is nothing to stop any of the political parties from forming a coalition
with another political party in order to fill up the two vacancies resulting from
• Petitioner’s contention: this decision.
1. Tolentino compromise violates Section 18 of Article 6 of the Constitution
2. The 8th nomination of LDP and the 1 nomination from LP-PDP-LABAN unduly III. WON it is mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the Commission on
increased the representation of said parties at the expense of NPC and LAKAS- Appointments
RATIO DECIDENDI: The CA may perform its functions and transact its business
3. According to Section 18 of Article 6 of the Constitution, it is the right of the
even if only 10 senators are elected thereto as long as a quorum exists.
minority parties to combine their fractional representation to complete one seat
and to decide who, among their ranks, shall be nominated LEGAL BASES:
a. Section 18, Article 6, The Constitution: The CA shall rule by majority vote of all
ISSUES: the members
b. Section 19, Article 6, the Constititution: The CA shall meet only while Congress
I. WON the nomination of Romulo and Tañada are in violation of the is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its members “to
Constitution discharge such powers and functions herein conferred upon it.”
HELD: Yes c. Section 10, Chapter 3 of the Rules of the Commission on Appointments:
RATIO DECIDENDI: To disturb the resulting fractional membership of the political …The presence of at least 13 members is necessary to constitute a quorum.
parties in the C.A. by adding together two halves to make a whole is a breach Provided, however, that at least 4 of the members constituting the quorum
of the rule on proportional representation. should come from either house.
LEGAL BASIS: Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution:
There shall be a C.A. consisting of… 12 senators… elected… on the REASONING:
basis of proportional representation from the political parties or • Constitution does not require the election and presence of 12 senators and 12
organizations registered under the party list system.
members of the House of Rep. in order that the CA may function.
• It will give the LDP an added member by utilizing the fractional membership of • Other instance may be mentioned of Constitutional collegial bodies which
the minority political party, who is deprived of representation. perform their functions even if not fully constituted and even if their
• Provision of Section 18, Article 6 is mandatory in character and not subject to composition is expressly specified by the Constitution (e.g. Supreme Court,
the discretion of the majority party; otherwise, the majority party can, by sheer Civil Service Commission, Commission on Election, Commission on Audit)
force if numbers, impose its will on the hapless minority
IV. WON the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the two
• In other words, it will defeat the purpose of the rule of proportional
representation, which is: (1) to provide a check on the majority party; and (2) HELD: Yes.
to maintain a balance of power RATIO DECIDENDI: Where power is exercised in a manner inconsistent with
the command of the Constitution, and by reason of numerical strength,
II. In the case of Senator Tañada in particular knowingly and not merely inadvertently, said exercise amounts to abuse of
RATIO DECIDENDI: A political party must have at least two senators in the Senate authority granted by law and grave abuse of discretion is properly found to
to have a representative in the Commission on Appointments; any number less exist.
than 2 will not entitle such a party a membership in the C.A.
 Election of Romulo and Tañada are declared null and void for violating Section
18, Article 6 of the Constitution
 They are ordered to desist from assuming, occupying and discharging the
functions of members of the CA.
 Gonzales is ordered to desist from recognizing the membership of the
respondent Senators and from allowing them to sit and participate as members
of said Commission.