BONDOC VS PINEDA

201 SCRA 792

FACTS:

Pineda of the Laban ng Demokrating Pilipino (LDP) and Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival
candidates for the position of Representative for the 4th District of Pampanga. Pineda was proclaimed
winner in the election. However, Bondoc filed a protest in the HRET on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties/organizations registered under the party-list
system.

The reexamination and re-appreciation of the ballots resulted in increasing Bondoc’s lead over Pineda to
107 and Congressman Camasura of LDP voted with the SC Justices to proclaim Bondoc as the winner of
the contest.

LDP Secretary General Congressman Cojuangco informed Camasura that LDP-Davao had already expelled
him for the alleged acts which was a betrayal to the cause, objectives and loyalty of the LDP.

The HRET then issued a resolution wherein it withdraws the nomination and rescind the election of Cong.
Camasura to the HRET, AND THE Tribunal resolved to cancel the promulgation of its Decision in Bondoc
vs Pineda because without the vote of Cong. Camasura, the decision lacks concurrence of 5 members as
required by Sec. 24 of the Rules of the Tribunal and, therefore, cannot be validly promulgated.

Bondoc filed a petition for certioirari, prohibition and mandamus against Pineda, Palacol and Camasura,
or any replacement of Cong. Camasura and the HRET.

ISSUE:

WON the House of Representatives is empowered by the Constitution to interfere with the disposition of
an election contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the ruse of "reorganizing" the representation
in the tribunal of the majority party?

RULING:

Political Law; Separation of powers; Judicial review of acts of the other branches of government.—Since
“a constitutional grant of authority is not usually unrestricted, limitations being provided for as to what
may be done and how it is to be accomplished, necessarily then, it becomes the responsibility of the courts
to ascertain whether the two coordinate branches have adhered to the mandate of the fundamental law.
The question thus posed is Judicial rather than political. The duty remains to assure that the supremacy
of the Constitution is upheld. That duty is a part of the judicial power vested in the courts by an express
grant under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines which defines judicial power
as both authority and duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and 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.”

The power and duty of the courts to nullify the actions of the executive and legislative branches of the
Government does not mean that the courts are superior to the President and the Legislature. It does
mean though that the judiciary may not shirk “the irksome task” of inquiring into the constitutionality and
legality of legislative or executive action when a justiciable controversy is brought before the courts by
someone who has been aggrieved or prejudiced by such action, as in this case. lt is—"a plain exercise of
the judicial power, that power vested in courts to enable them to administer justice according to law.
It is simply a necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose of a case or controversy properly
before the court, to the determination of which must be brought the test and measure of the law.”

The judicial power of this Court has been invoked by Bondoc for the protection of his rights against the
strong arm of the majority party in the House of Representatives. The Court cannot be deaf to his plea
for relief, nor indifferent to his charge that the House of Representatives had acted with grave abuse of
discretion in removing Congressman Camasura from the House Electoral Tribunal. He calls upon the
Court, as guardian of the Constitution, to exercise its judicial power and discharge its duty to protect his
rights as the party aggrieved by the- action of the House. The Court must perform its duty under the
Constitution “even when the violator be the highest official of the land or the Government itself.

Since the expulsion of Congressman Camasura from the House Electoral Tribunal by the House of
Representatives was not for a lawful and valid cause, but to unjustly interfere with the tribunal’s
disposition of ‘the Bondoc case and to deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the Tribunal’s decision in his favor,
the action of the House of Representatives is clearly violative of the constitutional mandate which created
the House Electoral Tribunal to be the “sole judge” of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc.
The Court, therefore, declare null and void the resolution of the House of ‘Representatives withdrawing
the nomination, and rescinding the election, of Congressman Camasura as a member of the House
Electoral Tribunal. The petitioner, Dr. Emigdio Bondoc, is entitled to the reliefs he prays for in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is granted. The decision of the House
of Representatives withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the election of Congressman Juanito G.
Camasura, Jr. as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal is hereby declared null and void ab initio for
being violative of the Constitution, and Congressman Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. is ordered reinstated to his
position as a member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. The HRET Resolution cancelling
the promulgation of the decision in HRET Case No. 26 (“Dr. Emigdio Bondoc vs. Marciano A. Pineda”) is
also set aside. Considering the unconscionable delay incurred in the promulgation of that decision to the
prejudice of the speedy resolution’ of electoral cases, the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction,
and in the interest of justice, hereby declares the said decision DULY PROMULGATED, effective upon
service of copies thereof on the parties, to be done immediately by the Tribunal Costs against respondent
Marciano A. Pineda.