- Before the opening of the 17th Congress, there were several news articles

which surfaced re: Rep. Suarez’s announcmeemnt that he sought the

CONSTITUTION
adoption or anointment I of President Duterte’s Administration as minority leader
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
- Petition further states that in order to ensure Rep/ Suarez’s election as Minority
TOPIC Article VI, Section 16. Officers and Internal - The petition
Leader, the supermajority further
coalition claims
in the Housethat allegedly
to ensure Rep.“lent”Suarez's
some of its
Business (Officers of Congress) election as the Minority Leader, the supermajority
members to feign membership in the minority, and vote for him as Minority coalition in
CASE NO. G.R. No. 200238 Leader the House allegedly "lent" Rep. Suarez some of its members to
CASE NAME Baguilat, Jr. v. Speaker Alvarez feign membership in the Minority, and thereafter, vote for him
PONENTE N/A as the Minority Leader.
PETITIONER Representatives Teddy Brawner Baguilat, - PriorJose
FloorJr.,leader Farinas and to the electionhad
Atienza of the
an Speaker
exchange of the House
during theofplenary:
Edcel C. Lagman, Raul A. Daza, Edgar R. Representatives, then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. Fariñas and
Erice, Emmanuel A. Billones, Tomasito those who vote for Rep.
all S. Jose Atienza
the WINNING had an interchange
SPEAKER shall belong before
to the
the Plenary,
MAJORITY
Villarin, and Gary C. Alejano wherein the latter elicited the following
all those who vote for the OTHER CANDIDATES shall belong to the MINORITY from the former: (a)
RESPONDENT Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez, Majority ABSTAIN -> MINORTIY all those who vote for the winning Speaker shall belong to the
Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas, and Majority and those who vote
Minority leader shall be elected from the members of the MINORITYfor the other candidates shall
Representative Danilo E. Suarez belong to the Minority; (b) those who abstain from voting shall
TYPE OF Petition for mandamus likewise be considered part of the Minority; and (c) the
CASE - Speaker
Minority Alvarez
Leaderbecame duly elected
shall be elected by the speaker
members of the
MEMBER Gian Carla Guido - Rep Suarez
Minority. was elected
Thereafter, the as minority
Elections forleader
the Speakership were
held, "with 252 Members voting for Speaker Alvarez, 8 voting
ISSUE for Rep. Baguilat, 7 voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and
- Farinas movedafor
1 registering no recognition
vote," resultingBUT inLagman
Speaker Alvarez being the
1. W/N respondents may be compelled via a writ of mandamus to opposed
duly claiming
elected that
Speaker Suarez’s
of the HoRelection
of the hadCongress.
17
th

recognize: (a) Rep. Baguilat as the Minority Leader of the - Rep. Abayon, one of those who abstained, manifested before
irregularities:
House of Representatives; and (b) petitioners as the only (1) Suarez voted
the Plenary thatforonAlvarez,
July 27, making
2016, thosehimwhothe Majority
did not vote for
legitimate members of the House Minority. (2) The people
Speaker who (including
Alvarez abstainedthe constituted the bulk convened
21 who abstained)
votedandinelected
favor ofRep. Suarez
Suarez BUTas Minority
they the Leader.
fact that they
RELEVANT FACTS - Rep. Fariñas
comprised the minority
moved for is deemed
recognition,to bebutirregular
was opposed by Rep.
Lagmanhave
(shouldn’t claiming
beenthat Rep.minority
in the Suarez’sinelection
the firsthadplace)
- The petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17th irregularities:
- Lagman’s opposition was overhauled THUS Suarez
Congress on July 25, 2016, several news articles surfaced was o Rep.
recognized Suarez was a Leader
as Minority member of the Majority as he voted
about Rep. Suarez's announcement that he sought the adoption for Speaker Alvarez, and that his "transfer" to the
or anointment of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte's Minority was irregular
Administration as the "Minority Leader". o the abstentionists who constituted the bulk of voted in
favor of Rep. Suarez are supposed to be considered

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
independent members of the House, and thus, session does not indicate any motion made, seconded
irregularly deemed as part of the Minority. and carried to correct the entry in the Journal of the
- Rep. Lagman’s opposition was overruled and Rep. Suarez was previous session (July 25, 2016) pertinent to any
officially recognized as House W/N respondents
Minority Leader. may be compelled to recognize Baguilat recordingas error that may have been made, as to indicate
Minortiy Leader and petitioners as the only members of the
that in fact, a protest or objection was raised.
RATIO DECIDENDI minority? e. Section 16 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
a) NO bcos prior
1. W/N respondents may be compelled via a writ of mandamus to to election floor leader Farinas expressly
Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of
articulated that the
recognize: (a) Rep. Baguilat as the Minority Leader of the candidates who voted for other members
all its respective Members.
and abstained are
House of Representatives; and (b) petitioners as the only part of the minortiy
legitimate members of the House Minority? NO. Each house shall choose such other officers as it
b) Lagman only asked
a. The Court finds that petitioners have no clear legal him when all the proceedings may of deem necessary.
Farinas’
right to the reliefs sought. privilege speech had commenced
b. Records disclose that prior to the Speakership Election f. Under this provision, the Speaker of the House of
c) Suarez points
held on July 25, 2016, then-Acting out thatRep.
Floor Leader in the Journal, no motion Representatives
was made shall be elected by a majority vote of
Fariñas responded to a parliamentary inquiry from Rep. its entire membership. Said provision also states that
Atienza as to who would d)elect
Section 16 (1) ofLeader
the Minority Art 6: of the House of Representatives may decide to have
“Senate shall
the House of Representatives. Rep. Fariñas thenelect its President, HoR, its Speaker, by
officers other than the Speaker, and that the method
MAJORITY VOTE of
articulated that: (a) all those who vote for the winning all its respective members and manner as to how these officers are chosen is
Speaker shall belong to the Majority and those who something within its sole control.
vote for other candidates Each
shallhouse
belongshall
to thechoose
Minority; other officers as it may g. deem
Section 16 (3), Article VI vests in the House of
necessary.” -> the
(b) those who abstain from voting shall likewise be manner of choosing its speakers is
Representatives the sole authority to, inter alia,
something to its sole
considered part of the Minority; and (c) the Minority control "determine the rules of its proceedings." These
Leader shall be elected by the members of the "legislative rules, unlike statutory laws, do not have
Minority. g) Sec 16 (3) Art 6: Representatives have sole authority to
the imprints of permanence and obligatoriness
c. During his privilege speech “determine
delivered theonrules of its
July 26, proceedings”
2016, during their effectivity. In fact, they 'are subject to
which was a full day after - such rules
all the are still subject to revocation, modification
above-mentioned or
revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure
proceedings had alreadywaiver at the pleasure
been commenced and of the body adopting them as of they
the bodyare adopting them.' Being merely matters of
completed, Rep. Lagman MERELY
questionedMATTERS OF PROCEDURE
Rep. Fariñas' procedure, their observance are of no concern to the
interpretation of the Rules- observance of such is NOT a concern of the courts courts, for said rules may be waived or disregarded
d. Aside from the belated timing of Rep. Lagman's query, by the legislative body at will, upon the concurrence
Rep. Suarez aptly points out that the Journal for that of a majority of the House of Representatives."

2
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
2. As a general rule, "this Court has no authority to interfere and 4. However, as may be gleaned from the circumstances as to how
unilaterally intrude into that exclusive realm, without running the House had conducted the questioned proceedings and its
afoul of Constitutional principles that it is bound to protect and apparent deviation from its traditional rules, the Court is hard-
uphold x x x. Constitutional respect and a becoming regard for pressed to find any attending grave abuse of discretion which
the sovereign acts of a coequal branch prevents the Court from would warrant its intrusion in this case. By and large, this case
prying into the internal workings of the House of
Court has no authority to interfere on the INTERNAL workings of the concerns an internal matter of a coequal, political branch of
Representatives."
HoR without encroaching the principle of the separation of powers government which, absent any showing of grave abuse of
a. Exception: While the Court in taking jurisdiction over discretion, cannot be judicially interfered with. To rule
petitions questioning an act of the political departments
exception: when the courts settle actual controversies involving otherwise would not only embroil this Court in the realm of
of government,
(1) rights which willdemandable
are legally not review the wisdom, merits or politics, but also lead to its own breach of the separation of
propriety
(2) GRAVE ABUSE of such action, it will, however, strike it powers doctrine.
down on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. This 5. Verily, "it would be an unwarranted invasion of the
stems from the expanded concept
COURTS CANNOT JUDICIALLY INTERFERE WITH THIS CASE of judicial power, prerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to set
BECAUSE which,
IT HASunder
NOTSection
FOUND 1, Article VIII of the 1987
ANY INSTANCE OF GRAVE aside a legislative action as void [only] because [it] thinks
ABUSE Constitution, expressly "includes the duty of the [that] the House has disregarded its own rules of procedure, or
courts of justice to settle actual controversies to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch
involving rights which are legally demandable and in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there that department itself."
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any DISPOSITIVE POSITION
branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Case law decrees that the foregoing text emphasizes WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
the judicial department's duty and power to strike down
grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
instrumentality of government including Congress. It is
an innovation in our political law. - Madamus: a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board
3. Accordingly, this Court "will not shirk, digress from or or person to do the act required to be done when it or he
abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of discretion specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by any station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
officer, agency, instrumentality or department of the enjoyment of a right or office or which such other is entitled,
government."

3
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
- Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda: the Court
explained that the peremptory writ of mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity,
and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an
adequate and speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to
the performance of the act to be compelled
- Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona: the Court observed that
"while the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing x
x x a Speaker of the HoR, it is, however, dead silent on the
manner of selecting the other officers of the Lower House. All
that the Charter says is that 'each House shall choose such
other officers as it may deem necessary.' As such, the method
of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a
derivative of the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the
aforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore, such method
must be prescribed by the HoR itself, not by the Court."
RELEVANT LAWS
*SEE RATIO DECIDENDI*
SEPARATE OPINION
CONCURRING & DISSENTING: Leonen, J.
Main Point:
While there was a violation of the rules of the House of
Representatives, a writ of mandamus does not lie to compel the
Speaker and the House to recognize a specific member to be the
Minority Leader.
Discussion:
1. Courts generally do not intervene in matters internal to
Congress, such as the manner of choosing its own officers or
leaders
a. Section 16. (1). The Senate shall elect its President and
the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority
vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall
choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
b. It was grave abuse of discretion for the House of
Representatives to disregard the first, second, fourth to
eighth, and last paragraphs of Rule II, Section 8 of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
c. The question raised in the petition, although political in
nature, are justiciable because they involve the
enforcement of legal precepts, such as the provisions of
the Constitution and of the rules of the Senate
i. Avelino v. Cuenco was used as reference and
majority of the justices (6 out of the 10) have
asserted that the case was justiciable.
2. Acts of the legislature relating to its internal procedures may fall
under this Court's power of judicial review.
a. In Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona to argue the
petitioners argue that the case is non-justiciable
precisely because they belong to the realm of party
politics
i. However, in Defensor-Santiago: It is well within
the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire
whether indeed the Senate or its officials
committed a violation of the Constitution or
gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of
their functions and prerogatives.
4
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
ii. This Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the
Senate validly recognized Senator Guingona as
Minority Leader.
1. Senators Tatad and Defensor-Santiago's
allegations had no basis in the
Constitution, the statutes, the Senate
Rules, and the parliamentary practices of
the Senate itself.
2. There was no constitutional or statutory
provision, Senate rules, or parliamentary
practice that would make the defeated
candidate for Senate presidency ipso
facto the Senate Minority Leader.
3. The 1987 Constitution abolished the unicameral legislature and
installed a bicameral Congress, which is composed of the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
a. For nearly three (3) decades the House of
Representatives has practiced the tradition of having the
second placer for House Speaker automatically become
the Minority Leader.
b. An unopposed candidate for Speaker during the 14th
Congress presented a challenge for the determination of
a Minority Leader. Thus, the House amended the Rules
of the 14th Congress so that the Minority Leader could
be voted for separately.
i. The express provision on electing the Minority
Leader during the 14th Congress did not prevent
the House from continuing the practice of
making the second placer ipso facto its Minority
Leader during the subsequent 15th and 16th
Congresses.
c. This parliamentary practice took primacy over the Rules
themselves. There is no reason to treat the 17th Congress
differently.
4. The justiciability of the issue is anchored on arbitrary judgment
committed by respondents in refusing to recognize
Representative Baguilat as the ipso facto Minority Leader, in
accordance with a long-established parliamentary practice and
Rules of the House of Representatives.
a. There was also grave abuse of discretion in counting the
votes of Representative Suarez and those of the
independent members in the election for Minority Leader.
i. Representative Suarez belonged to the Majority
and was disqualified from being the Minority
Leader.
ii. 20 abstaining members and the one (1) who
registered a no-vote were independent members,
who have no legal basis in voting a minority leader.
b. Representative Fariñas was flouting the Rules himself.
i. First, the records do not show that Representative
Fariñas' own interpretation of Rule II, Section 8 was
submitted for adoption by the requisite number of
members or was ruled upon by the Presiding
Officer.
1. Records show that after giving his own
interpretation of Rule II, Section 8,
Representative Fariñas simply moved to
proceed to the election for House Speaker
disregarding the Body.
ii. Second, while the House of Representatives may
suspend or amend their rules, specific procedures
must be followed for any suspension or amendment
to be considered valid.
5
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
iii. Third, there is no "estoppel by silence" that could
amount to an amendment of the Rules.
iv. Fourth, the Rules of the House of Representatives
do not cover the doctrine of estoppel.
1. Estoppel bars a person who admitted or
represented something from later on
denying or disproving that thing in any
litigation arising from such admission or
representation.
v. Fifth, even assuming that "estoppel by silence" is
recognized in House proceedings, this doctrine
does not apply to the situation at bar.
5. Under Rule II, Section 8, while the Majority Leader has
discretion to accept a representative applying to be a member of
the Majority, he or she does not have the same discretion when
a representative applies to be part of the Minority.
a. Under the first, second, and last paragraphs of Rule II,
Section 8, the 20 abstaining Members are independent
members. The fourth to eighth paragraphs further reveal
that these abstaining members are considered independent
until they are accepted in the Minority by the ipso facto
Minority Leader Representative Baguilat.
b. Moreover, Representative Suarez, who voted for Speaker
Alvarez, is himself considered part of the Majority. His
request to transfer to the Minority needed the permission of
Minority Leader Representative Baguilat and not that of
Majority Leader Representative Fariñas.
6. Mandamus is available when a person is excluded from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office to which he or she is
entitled. As a rule, mandamus requires the exhaustion of
administrative remedies available to the petitioner.
a. Mandamus lies to compel the board, officer, or person
to do a ministerial act or duty which the board, officer,
or person unlawfully neglects to do.
i. The House has collectively considered the votes
for the second placer for House Speaker as the
votes of the Minority for its Minority Leader.
ii. House leadership must extend recognition to
the duly- designated Minority Leader.
Mandamus does not lie to allow this Court to
choose the Minority Leader.
7. Caution must be exercised in having a complete hands-off
approach on matters involving grave abuse of discretion of a
co-equal branch.
a. Article VIII, Section 1 explicitly grants this Court the
power "to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government."
b. The rule of law must still prevail in curbing any
attempt to suppress the minority and eliminate dissent.
i. Parliamentary practice and the Rules of the
House of Representatives cannot be overruled
in favor of personal agenda.
ii. The complete annihilation of any dissenting
voice, no matter how reasonable, is a prelude to
many forms of authoritarianism.
8. The remedy petitioners have chosen is a Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus.
a. A writ for Mandamus is only valid if petitioner
Representative Baguilat still has the clear and
6
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
unmistakable right to be recognized as the Minority
Leader.
b. The proper recourse in a case like this should just have
been an action for certiorari or prohibition to annul the
actions of the respondents, in order to allow the
minority to convene and select its leader in accordance
to the rules.
c. A writ of Mandamus is inappropriate for this situation,
even with the concurrence that there is a grave abuse of
discretion.