[PoliRev] - [Art.

VI, §17][composition]
Abbas v. SET [judicial and legislative participation]
103
[G.R. No. L-83767] [Oct. 27, 1988] [Gancayco] [JTSY]
Petitioner/s: Respondent/s:
Firdausi Smail Abbas, Homobono A. Adaza, The Senate Electoral Tribunal
Alejandro D. Almendras, Abul Kahyr D. Alonto, Juan
Ponce Enrile, Rene G. Espina, Wilson P. Gamboa,
Roilo S. Golez, Romeo G. Jalosjos, Eva R. Estrada-
Kalaw, Wenceslao R. Lagumbay, Vicente P.
Magsaysay, Jeremias U. Montemayor, Blas F. Ople,
Rafael P. Palmares, Zosimo Jesus M. Paredes, Jr.,
Vicente G. Puyat, Edith N. Rabat, Isidro S.
Rodriguez, Francisco S. Tatad, Lorenzo G. Teves,
Arturo M. Tolentino, and Fernando R. Veloso
Recit Ready Summary

Petitioners filed an election contest before respondent SET against 22 candidates of LABAN who were
proclaimed Senators-elect. They subsequently filed to inhibit/disqualify the Senator-Members of the SET,
on the ground that they are interested parties, being respondents. They propose a solution: to amend the
SET Rules of Procedure such that the 3 Justices can decide on the contest.

I: Is said solution constitutionally permissible? NO

The Consti, in providing for the composition of the SET, intended that the “legislative” and “judicial”
components share the authority in deciding on all electoral contests. This intent is emphasized by the fact
that the proportion of Senators to Justices is 2-to-1, showing the intention that the “legislative component”
cannot be totally done away with. The proposal of petitioners would result in the SET having no choice
but to abandon its duty; a duty which it and no other court or body can perform, the performance of which
is in the highest public interest. The SET cannot legally function as such without its entire complement of
Senators; no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid
adjudication of a senatorial election contest. Petition dismissed

Facts + Procedural History

1. Oct. 9, 1987 – petitioners filed an election contest before respondent against 22 candidates of
LABAN who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11, 1987 elections. At the time, respondent
tribunal was comprised of 3 SC Justices and 6 Senators1
2. Nov. 17, 1987 – petitioners (except Sen. Estrada, but including Sen. Enrile) 2 file a Motion for
Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senator-Members on the hearing and resolution of SET Case No.
002-87, on the ground that they were interested parties, as respondents in that case
3. In the meantime, Sen. Enrile voluntarily inhibited
4. Petitioners argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process
require the mass disqualification, and they propose as a solution to amend the Tribunal’s Rules of
Procedure so as to permit the contest being decided by only 3 Members, which they say is
constitutionally permissible

Procedural History

1
Sr. Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap as Chairman, Associate Justices Andres R. Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez Sr., and
Senators Joseph E. Estrada, Neptali A. Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr., Mamintal A.J. Tamano, and
Victor S. Ziga
2
Enrile was designated Member of the Tribunal replacing Estrada

ALS B2021 1
Points of Contention

Issue/s Ruling
1. Is the proposal acceptable? 1. No

Rationale

1. The proposal is impermissible

 The Consti, in providing for the SET to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members
of the Senate, intended that both the legislative and judicial components commonly
share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to election, returns, and
qualifications of Senators
 The intent is even more clearly signaled by the fact that the proportion of Senators to
Justices is 2-to-1, showing the intention that the legislative component cannot be totally
excluded in the resolution of contests without doing violation to the spirit and intent of the
Consti
 The proposed mass disqualification would leave the SET no choice but to abandon its duty,
which no other court or body can perform
 This is the overriding consideration; that the SET not be prevented from discharging a duty
which it alone has the power to perform, the performance of which is in the highest public
interest
 It might be noted that the framers of the Consti could not have been unaware of a situation
in which an election contest would involve all 24 Senators-elect, 6 of whom would inevitably
have to sit in judgment thereon; however, the Consti provided no mode of settling such
unusual situations. Litigants must simply place their trust in the fairness of the Senators
 Let it not be misunderstood as saying that no Senator-Member of the SET cannot voluntarily
inhibit; it just means that the SET cannot legally function absent its entire membership
of Senator, and no amendment of its Rules can confer on the 3 Justices-members
alone the power to adjudicate the contest

Disposition

Petition dismissed
Separate Opinion/s

1. J. Feliciano, concurring

 Should any 3 Senator-Members inhibit, the result would be a Tribunal that is balanced
between Senators and Justices and still be more than a bare quorum
 In such a case, both the considerations of public policy and fair play raised by petitioners
and the constitutional intent concerning the mixed legislative and judicial composition would
be substantially met
 However, such must be voluntarily reached and not compelled

ALS B2021 2