SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D.

EBALLE,
LEONARDO Q. MONTEMAYOR, CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES and
PATRICIA M. SARENAS, petitioners,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JUSTICES JOSE A.R. MELO,
VICENTE V. MENDOZA and JOSE C. VITUG, and REPRESENTATIVES ASANI S. TAMMANG,
RAUL M. GONZALES, DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, DANTON Q. BUESER,1 NAPOLEON R.
BERATIO, SIMEON E. GARCIA and SPEAKER MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR., respondents.

G.R. No. 141489 | November 29, 2002 | Carpio, J.

KEYWORDS: Commission on Appointments – composition, nature, functions

PROCEDURE
HRET Chairman and members
Respondents: Who filed it: Senator Nene Pimentel, et. al
CA Chairman and members
Petition for prohibition and
Nature of the case: mandamus with prayer for writ of Decision: The petitions were dismissed
preliminary injunction

FACTS

1. The first party-list election was held in May 1998. Winners were 13 representatives from 14 party-list groups
and organizations.

2. After the elections, the House constituted its House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and
Commission on Appointments (CA) contingent by electing its representatives to these constitutional bodies.
In practice, the political parties of House Members nominate who are to occupy seats in the HRET and CA.
No records showed that duly elected party-list groups had nominated any of their representatives to the
HRET and CA; the House contingents to HRET and CA were composed solely of district reps from various
political parties.

3. In January 2000, Sen. Nene Pimentel wrote letters to the Chairman of CA (Senate President Blas Ople) and
to the Chairman of HRET (Associate Justice Melo), requesting to cause the restructuring of the CA and HRET
to include party-list reps pursuant to Secs. 171 and 182 Art. VI of the Constitution.

4. In February 2000, petitioners filed with SC Petitions for Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary Injunction
against HRET and CA, contending that party-list should have at least 1 seat in the HRET and 2 seats in the
CA. They also alleged that LP and LAKAS were over-represented in the HRET and the CA, and that LP
representatives should be ousted and replaced with the nominees of party-list representatives.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the composition of the HRET and the CA violated the constitutional requirement of
proportional representation in the absence of party-list representatives. NO.

1
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be,
who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
2
Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members
of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties andparties or organizations
registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on
all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission.
/A. Rollon
 2. Whether or not the refusal of HRET and CA to reconstitute themselves to include party-list representatives
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. NO.

RATIONALE
1. The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives the prerogative to choose among its
members those who may occupy seats allotted to the House in the HRET and the CA. In the absence of clear
violation or grave abuse of discretion, the Court may not interfere as it may constitute violation of the
doctrine of separation of powers.

2. There are no allegations that respondents prevented the party-list groups in the House from participating
in the election of members of the HRET and the CA, nor does it appear that the House barred the party-list
representatives from seeking membership in the HRET or the CA. It appears that the party-list groups in the
House simply refrained from participating in the election process

3. There is no grave abuse in the action or lack of action by the HRET and the CA in response to the letters of
Senator Pimentel. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and their internal rules,
the HRET and the CA are bereft of any power to reconstitute themselves.

4. Finally, the issues raised in the petitions have been rendered academic by subsequent events. On May 14,
2001, a new set of district and party-list representatives were elected to the House. it is certain that the
composition of the House has changed.

HELD/DISPOSITIVE
The petitions were dismissed.

/A. Rollon