Lopez v.

Senate of the Philippines

G.R.No. 163556
June 8, 2004

FACTS:
● Ruy Elias Lopez, Representative of the 3 rd Legislative District of Davao City, filed a petition for prohibition and
mandamus to ask the Court to declare unconstitutional the Canvassing Rules, which was approved by the Senate
and the House of Representatives in a joint session.
● Lopez argued that the power and authority to open all certificates of canvass of votes for Presidential and Vice-
Presidential Candidates are solely and exclusively vested by the Constitution upon the Senate President. While,
the power and authority to determine the authenticity and due execution of all certificates of canvass and to
canvass the votes cast for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates are solely and exclusively vested by the
Constitution upon the Congress as one whole body.
● He alleged that the Canvassing Rules are unconstitutional because:
○ It constitutes a delegation of legislative power to a Joint Committee of Congress;
○ It constitutes an amendment of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution;
○ It deprives him of his rights and prerogatives as a Member of Congress; and
○ By the passage of the Canvassing Rules, Congress has neglected to perform an act which the Constitution
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office.
● The OSG, the Senate and the House of Representatives similarly argued that the adoption of the Canvassing
Rules is beyond the scope of judicial inquiry as it is an internal matter of Congress. They also argued that there
has been no invalid delegation to the Joint Committee of the duties of Congress.

ISSUES and RULING:

1) Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Yes, the SC has jurisdiction over the subject matter because the petition contains sufficient allegations claiming
violations of the Constitution. However, the SC dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to show that
Congress gravely abused its discretion in creating the Joint Committee.

2) Whether the Canvassing Rules is unconstitutional.

No, Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to promulgate its rules for the canvassing of
the certificates.

3) Whether the creation of the Joint Committee constituted an invalid delegation of the constitutional duties of
Congress.

No, the decisions and final report of the Joint Committee are still subject to the approval of the joint session of both
Houses of Congress, voting separately.

Separate Opinions:
1) The Court has jurisdiction over the issue raised based on Art. VIII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that
judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. It falls within the
judicial power to determine for itself whether the legality and the limits of the exercise of a power have been
observed and respected. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter because the issue raised by Lopez
calls for the proper interpretation of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution.

2) The authority of Congress to adopt its own rules of procedure is a right that has been recognized to apply
regardless of whether Congress is exercising its legislative power or its other duties, such as in this case when it
acts as the National Board of Canvassers. Congress remains the body exercising its canvassing duties and
delegating preliminary determinations to expedite proceedings. Where the rules of Congress have thus been
passed within the limits of constitutional and legal boundaries, everything else remains internal and procedural.

The Canvassing Rules did not violate Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress the
power to promulgate its own rules for the canvassing of election certificates. The Rules enjoy the presumption of
legality and Lopez has miserably failed to overcome such presumption.

3) The creation of the Joint Committee did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. As a canvassing
board, Congress exercises no legislative power and therefore did not delegate any.
The principle of potestas delegate non delegari potest (a delegated power cannot again be delegated) does not
apply in this case insofar as no other branch of government has been tasked with the duties of Congress as a
National Board of Canvassers. There has been no delegation or abdication of any Constitutional authority, even
within Congress itself.

Since the Canvassing Rules subjects the acts of the Joint Committee to the affirmation of Congress, the
Committee’s report is preliminary and recommendatory in nature. The Rules leaves to both Houses, as an entire
body, the final act of determining the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass, and the
proclamation of the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect.

There is no deprivation of the rights and prerogatives of the Members of Congress. The fact that the findings of
the Committee are subject to a final act of Congress, then, by casting his vote and declaring his approval or
disapproval of the final report, Lopez exercises his prerogatives as a Member of Congress.