Case Digest No.

9
Rep. Raul A. Daza vs. Rep. Luis c. Singson
G.R. No.86344, December 21,1989

FACTS:
The HoR distributes its 12 CoA seats proportionally among the many political parties
represented in that chamber under Art VI Sec 18. The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
was reorganized, resulting in a political realignment of the HoR. 24 members of the
Liberal Party joined the LDP, reducing their former party to only 17 members.

Based on this development, the House of Representatives changed its representation in

the CoA by removing the seat occupied by Daza and giving it to the newly formed LDP.
On December 5th, the chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the
original members except for the petitioner and including therein Luis C. Singson as the
additional member from the LDP.

Daza came to the Supreme Court to challenge his removal from the CoA and the
assumption of his seat by the Singson. Acting initially on his petition for prohibition and
injunction with the preliminary injunction, SC issued a TRO that same day to prevent
both Daza and Singson from serving in the CoA.

Daza contented that he cannot be removed from the CoA because his election thereto
is permanent. He admitted that the reorganization of the Chamber of Deputies in the
said body is not based on a permanent political realignment because the LDP is not a
duly registered political party and has not yet achieved political stability.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the question raised by Daza is political and not within the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court.

DECISION:
No, the court is competent to act in the case in advocacy. The matter in question is not
a discretionary act of the House of Representatives which we cannot review because it
is political in nature. What is at issue here is the legality, not the reasonableness, of this
Court's action in excluding the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments. The
term political question refers to those questions which, according to the Constitution,
must be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or where full discretion rests
with the legislature or the executive branch of government. These are matters that
depend to some extent on wisdom, not legality.
Although we think that the question before us is political in nature, we are not yet
precluded from resolving it within the extended jurisdiction which has been given to us,
which now extends, in appropriate cases, to a political question. Article VII, Section 1, of
the Constitution clearly states:
“Section 1. Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts
established by law. Jurisdiction includes the duty of the courts to decide genuine
disputes over legally asserted and enforceable rights and to determine whether there
has been a grave abuse of power in the jurisdiction by each branch. or instrument of
government.”