Download to read offline
![This is an original action instituted in this court by the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, for the issuance of a writ of
prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission, one of the respondents, from taking further
cognizance of the protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, another respondent, against the election of said petitioner as
member of the National Assembly for the first assembly district of the Province of Tayabas.
The facts of this case as they appear in the petition and as admitted by the respondents are as follows:
(1) That in the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, and the respondents, Pedro Ynsua,
Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor, were candidates voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for
the first district of the Province of Tayabas;
(2) That on October 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers, proclaimed the petitioner as member -elect of the
National Assembly for the said district, for having received the most number of votes;
(3) That on November 15, 1935, the petitioner took his oath of office;
(4) That on December 3, 1935, the National Assembly in session assembled, passed the following resolution:
[No. 8]
RESOLUCION CONFIRMANDO LAS ACTAS DE AQUELLOS DIPUTADOS CONTRA QUIENES NO SE HA
PRESENTADO PROTESTA.
Se resuelve:Quelasactas de eleccion de los Diputados contra quienes no se
hubierepresentadodebidamenteunaprotesta antes de la adopcion de la presenteresolucionsean, comopor la
presente, son aprobadas y confirmadas.
Adoptada, 3 dediciembre, 1935.
(5) That on December 8, 1935, the herein respondent Pedro Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a
"Motion of Protest" against the election of the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, being the only protest filed after the
passage of Resolutions No. 8 aforequoted, and praying, among other-things, that said respondent be declared
elected member of the National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas, or that the election of said position be
nullified;
(6) That on December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted a resolution, paragraph 6 of which provides:
6. La Comision no consideraraningunaprotestaque no se hayapresentado en o antes de este dia.
(7) That on December 20, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, one of the respondents in the aforesaid
protest, filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8
of Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly was adopted in the legitimate
exercise of its constitutional prerogative to prescribe the period during which protests against the election of its
members should be presented; (b) that the aforesaid resolution has for its object, and is the accepted formula for,
the limitation of said period; and (c) that the protest in question was filed out of the prescribed period;
(8) That on December 27, 1935, the herein respondent, Pedro Ynsua, filed an "Answer to the Motion of Dismissal"
alleging that there is no legal or constitutional provision barring the presentation of a protest against the election of
a member of the National Assembly after confirmation;
(9) That on December 31, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, filed a "Reply" to the aforesaid "Answer to
the Motion of Dismissal";
(10) That the case being submitted for decision, the Electoral Commission promulgated a resolution on January 23,
1936, denying herein petitioner's "Motion to Dismiss the Protest."
The application of the petitioner sets forth the following grounds for the issuance of the writ prayed for:](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-5-2048.jpg)
![Here is then presented an actual controversy involving as it does a conflict of a grave constitutional nature between
the National Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral Commission on the other. From the very nature of the
republican government established in our country in the light of American experience and of our own, upon the
judicial department is thrown the solemn and inescapable obligation of interpreting the Constitution and defining
constitutional boundaries. The Electoral Commission, as we shall have occasion to refer hereafter, is a
constitutional organ, created for a specific purpose, namely to determine all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly. Although the Elector al Commission may not be
interfered with, when and while acting within the limits of its authority, it does not follow that it is beyond the reach
of the constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and that it is not subject to constitutional restrictions. The
Electoral Commission is not a separate department of the government, and even if it were, conflicting claims of
authority under the fundamental law between department powers and agencies of the government are necessarily
determined by the judiciary in justifiable and appropriate cases. Discarding the English type and other European
types of constitutional government, the framers of our constitution adopted the American type where the written
constitution is interpreted and given effect by the judicial department. In some countries which have declined to
follow the American example, provisions have been inserted in their constitutions prohibiting the courts from
exercising the power to interpret the fundamental law. This is taken as a recognition of w hat otherwise would be the
rule that in the absence of direct prohibition courts are bound to assume what is logically their function. For
instance, the Constitution of Poland of 1921, expressly provides that courts shall have no power to examine the
validity of statutes (art. 81, chap. IV). The former Austrian Constitution contained a similar declaration. In countries
whose constitutions are silent in this respect, courts have assumed this power. This is true in Norway, Greece,
Australia and South Africa. Whereas, in Czechoslovakia (arts. 2 and 3, Preliminary Law to constitutional Charter of
the Czechoslovak Republic, February 29, 1920) and Spain (arts. 121-123, Title IX, Constitutional of the Republic of
1931) especial constitutional courts are established to pass upon the validity of ordinary laws. In our case, the
nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a final constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of
authority between two agencies created by the Constitution. Were we to decline to take cognizance of the
controversy, who will determine the conflict? And if the conflict were left undecided and undetermined, would not a
void be thus created in our constitutional system which may be in the long run prove destructive of the entire
framework? To ask these questions is to answer them. Natura vacuum abhorret, so must we avoid exhaustion in
our constitutional system. Upon principle, reason and authority, we are clearly of the opinion that upon the admitted
facts of the present case, this court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject mater of the
present controversy for the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the
Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
members of the National Assembly."
Having disposed of the question of jurisdiction, we shall now proceed to pass upon the second proposition and
determine whether the Electoral Commission has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in adopting its
resolution of December 9, 1935, and in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the
herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation thereof by the Natio nal Assembly on December 3, 1935.
As able counsel for the petitioner has pointed out, the issue hinges on the interpretation of section 4 of Article VI of
the Constitution which provides:
"SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Justice of the Supreme Court designated by
the Chief Justice, and of six Members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by the
party having the largest number of votes, and three by the party having the second largest number of vot es therein.
The senior Justice in the Commission shall be its Chairman. The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly." It is
imperative, therefore, that we delve into the origin and history of this constitutional provision and inquire into the
intention of its framers and the people who adopted it so that we may properly appreciate its full meaning, import
and significance.
The original provision regarding this subject in the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (sec. 7, par. 5) laying down the
rule that "the assembly shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members", was taken
from clause 1 of section 5, Article I of the Constitution of the United States providing that "Each House shall be the
Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, . . . ." The Act of Congress of August 29,
1916 (sec. 18, par. 1) modified this provision by the insertion of the word "sole" as follows: "That the Senate and
House of Representatives, respectively, shall be the sole judges of the elections, returns, and qualifications of their
elective members . . ." apparently in order to emphasize the exclusive the Legislative over the particular case s
therein specified. This court has had occasion to characterize this grant of power to the Philippine Senate and
House of Representatives, respectively, as "full, clear and complete" (Veloso vs. Boards of Canvassers of Leyte
and Samar [1919], 39 Phil., 886, 888.)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-9-2048.jpg)
![factions might be tested. Thus, for Example, in 1741, Sir Robert Walpole, after repeated attacks upon his
government, resigned his office in consequence of an adverse vote upon the Chippenham election. Mr. Hatsell
remarks, of the trial of election cases, as conducted under this system, that "Every principle of decency and justice
were notoriously and openly prostituted, from whence the younger part of the house were insensibly, but too
successfully, induced to adopt the same licentious conduct in more serious matters, and in questions of higher
importance to the public welfare." Mr. George Grenville, a distinguished member of the house of commons,
undertook to propose a remedy for the evil, and, on the 7th of March, 1770, obtained the unanimous leave of the
house to bring in a bill, "to regulate the trial of controverted elections, or returns of members to serve in parliament."
In his speech to explain his plan, on the motion for leave, Mr. Grenville alluded to the existing practice in the
following terms: "Instead of trusting to the merits of their respective causes, the principal dependence of both
parties is their private interest among us; and it is scandalously notorious that we are as earnestly canvassed to
attend in favor of the opposite sides, as if we were wholly self-elective, and not bound to act by the principles of
justice, but by the discretionary impulse of our own inclinations; nay, it is well known, that in every contested
election, many members of this house, who are ultimately to judge in a kind of judicial capacity between the
competitors, enlist themselves as parties in the contention, and take upon themselves the partial management of
the very business, upon which they should determine with the strictest impartiality."
155. It was to put an end to the practices thus described, that Mr. Grenville brought in a bill which met with the
approbation of both houses, and received the royal assent on the 12th of April, 1770. This was the celebrated law
since known by the name of the Grenville Act; of which Mr. Hatsell declares, that it "was one of the nobles works,
for the honor of the house of commons, and the security of the constitution, that was ever devised by any minister
or statesman." It is probable, that the magnitude of the evil, or the apparent success of the remedy, may have led
many of the contemporaries of the measure to the information of a judgement, which was not acquiesced in by
some of the leading statesmen of the day, and has not been entirely confirmed by subsequent experience. The bill
was objected to by Lord North, Mr. De Grey, afterwards chief justice of the common pleas, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Dyson,
who had been clerk of the house, and Mr. Charles James Fox, chiefly on the ground, that the introduction of the
new system was an essential alteration of the constitution of parliament, and a total abrogation of one of the most
important rights and jurisdictions of the house of commons.
As early as 1868, the House of Commons in England solved the problem of insuring the non-partisan settlement of
the controverted elections of its members by abdicating its prerogative to two judges of the King's Bench of the
High Court of Justice selected from a rota in accordance with rules of court made for the purpose. Having proved
successful, the practice has become imbedded in English jurisprudence (Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868 [31 &
32 Vict. c. 125] as amended by Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act. 1879 [42 & 43 Vict. c. 75], s. 2;
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Preventions Act, 1883 [46 & 47 Vict. c. 51;, s. 70; Expiring Laws Continuance Act,
1911 [1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 22]; Laws of England, vol. XII, p. 408, vol. XXI, p. 787). In the Dominion of Canada, election
contests which were originally heard by the Committee of the House of Commons, are since 1922 tried in the
courts. Likewise, in the Commonwealth of Australia, election contests which were originally determined by each
house, are since 1922 tried in the High Court. In Hungary, the organic law provides that all protests against the
election of members of the Upper House of the Diet are to be resolved by the Supreme Administrative Court (Law
22 of 1916, chap. 2, art. 37, par. 6). The Constitution of Poland of March 17, 1921 (art. 19) and the Constitution of
the Free City of Danzig of May 13, 1922 (art. 10) vest the authority to decide contested elections to the Diet or
National Assembly in the Supreme Court. For the purpose of deciding legislative contests, the Constitution of the
German Reich of July 1, 1919 (art. 31), the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic of February 29, 1920 (art.
19) and the Constitution of the Grecian Republic of June 2, 1927 (art. 43), all provide for an Electoral Commission.
The creation of an Electoral Commission whose membership is recruited both from the legislature and the judiciary
is by no means unknown in the United States. In the presidential elections of 1876 there was a dispute as to the
number of electoral votes received by each of the two opposing candidates. As the Constitution made no adequate
provision for such a contingency, Congress passed a law on January 29, 1877 (United States Statutes at Large,
vol. 19, chap. 37, pp. 227-229), creating a special Electoral Commission composed of five members elected by the
Senate, five members elected by the House of Representatives, and five justices of the Supreme Court, the fifth
justice to be selected by the four designated in the Act. The decision of the commission was to be binding unless
rejected by the two houses voting separately. Although there is not much of a moral lesson to be derived from the
experience of America in this regard, judging from the observations of Justice Field, who was a member of that
body on the part of the Supreme Court (Countryman, the Supreme Court of the United States and its Appellate
Power under the Constitution [Albany, 1913] — Relentless Partisanship of Electoral Commission, p. 25 et seq.), the
experiment has at least abiding historical interest.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-14-2048.jpg)
![Under the practice prevailing both in the English House of Commons and in the Congress of the United States,
confirmation is neither necessary in order to entitle a member-elect to take his seat. The return of the proper
election officers is sufficient, and the member-elect presenting such return begins to enjoy the privileges of a
member from the time that he takes his oath of office (Laws of England, vol. 12, pp. 331. 332; vol. 21, pp. 694, 695;
U. S. C. A., Title 2, secs. 21, 25, 26). Confirmation is in order only in cases of contested elections where the
decision is adverse to the claims of the protestant. In England, the judges' decision or report in controverted
elections is certified to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the House, upon being informed of such
certificate or report by the Speaker, is required to enter the same upon the Journals, and to give such directions for
confirming or altering the return, or for the issue of a writ for a new election, or for carrying into execution the
determination as circumstances may require (31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, sec. 13). In the United States, it is believed, the
order or decision of the particular house itself is generally regarded as sufficient, without any actual alternation or
amendment of the return (Cushing, Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th ed., sec. 166).
Under the practice prevailing when the Jones Law was still in force, each house of the Philippine Legislature fixed
the time when protests against the election of any of its members should be filed. This was expressly authorized by
section 18 of the Jones Law making each house the sole judge of the election, return and qualifications of its
members, as well as by a law (sec. 478, Act No. 3387) empowering each house to respectively prescribe by
resolution the time and manner of filing contest in the election of member of said bodies. As a matter of formality,
after the time fixed by its rules for the filing of protests had already expired, each house passed a resolution
confirming or approving the returns of such members against whose election no protests had been filed within the
prescribed time. This was interpreted as cutting off the filing of further protests against the election of those
members not theretofore contested (Amistad vs. Claravall [Isabela], Second Philippine Legislature, Record — First
Period, p. 89; Urguellovs. Rama [Third District, Cebu], Sixth Philippine Legislature; Fetalverovs.Festin [Romblon],
Sixth Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, pp. 637-640; Kintanarvs.Aldanese [Fourth District, Cebu], Sixth
Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, pp. 1121, 1122; Aguilar vs. Corpus [Masbate], Eighth Philippine
Legislature, Record — First Period, vol. III, No. 56, pp. 892, 893). The Constitution has repealed section 18 of the
Jones Law. Act No. 3387, section 478, must be deemed to have been impliedly abrogated also, for the reason that
with the power to determine all contest relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the
National Assembly, is inseparably linked the authority to prescribe regulations for the exercise of that po wer. There
was thus no law nor constitutional provisions which authorized the National Assembly to fix, as it is alleged to have
fixed on December 3, 1935, the time for the filing of contests against the election of its members. And what the
National Assembly could not do directly, it could not do by indirection through the medium of confirmation.
Summarizing, we conclude:
(a) That the government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of separation of power
into the legislative, the executive and the judicial.
(b) That the system of checks and balances and the overlapping of functions and duties often makes difficult the
delimitation of the powers granted.
(c) That in cases of conflict between the several departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with
the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict
and allocate constitutional boundaries.
(d) That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies,
and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution,
which is the source of all authority.
(e) That the Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions to
execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any of the other two departments
of the governments.
(f ) That the Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
of members of the National Assembly.
(g) That under the organic law prevailing before the present Constitution went into effect, each house of the
legislature was respectively the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of their elective members.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-17-2048.jpg)
![the 1971 local elections, by a plurality of 501 votes over his only rival, herein petitioner, who seasonably filed on
November 24, 1971 a protest against the election of the former with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, on
the grounds of (1) anomalies and irregularities in the appreciation, counting and consideration of votes in specified
electoral precincts; (2) terrorism; (3) rampant vote buying; (4) open voting or balloting; and (5) excessive campaign
expenditures and other violations of the 1971 Election Code.
Respondent Yu filed on November 29, 1971 his answer and counter-protest which petitioner answered on
December 10, 1971. However, respondent Yu withdrew his counter-protest after waiving the opening and revision
of the ballot boxes specified therein.
Proceedings therein continued with respect to the election protest of petitioner before the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, Branch XIV, presided by respondent Judge, who initially took cognizance of the same as it is
unquestionably a justiciable controversy.
In the meantime or on September 21, 1972, the incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines issued
Proclamation No. 1081, placing the entire country under Martial Law; and two months thereafter, more or less, or
specifically on November 29, 1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention passed and approved a Constitution to
supplant the 1935 Constitution; and the same was thereafter overwhelmingly ratified by the sovereign people of the
Republic of the Philippines on January 17, 1973; and on March 31, 1973, this Court declared that "there is no
further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect" (Javellana vs. Executive
Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 [1973]).
Thereafter or on October 10, 1973, at which time petitioner had already completed presenting his evidence and in
fact had rested his case, respondent Yu moved to dismiss the election protest of petitioner on the ground that the
trial court had lost jurisdiction over the same in view of the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution by reason of which —
principally) Section 9 of Article XVII [Transitory Provisions] and Section 2 of Article XI — a political question has
intervened in the case. Respondent Yu contended that "... the provisions in the 1935 Constitution relative to all
local governments have been superseded by the 1973 Constitution. Therefore, all local government should adhere
to our parliamentary form of government. This is clear in the New Constitution under its Article XI." He further
submitted that local elective officials (including mayors) have no more four-year term of office. They are only in
office at the pleasure of the appointing power embodied in the New Constitution, and under Section 9 of Article
XVII.
Petitioner vigorously opposed the motion to dismiss, and, relying mainly on Sections 7 and 8 of Article XVII
(Transitory Provisions) of the New Constitution and G.O. No. 3, contended that the New Constitution did not divest
the Court of First Instance of its jurisdiction to hear and decide election protests pending before them at the time of
its ratification and effectivity;that the ratification of the New Constitution and its effectivity did not automatically
abolish the office and position of municipal mayor nor has it automatically cut short the tenure of the office, so as to
render the issue as to who is the lawfully elected candidate to said office or position moot and academic; that
election protests involve public interest such that the same must be heard until terminated and may not be
dismissed on mere speculation that the office involved may have been abolished, modi fied or reorganized; and that
the motion to dismiss was filed manifestly for delay.
Respondent Yu replied pointing out, among others, that petitioner failed to refute the issue of political question; and
reiterated his stand, expanding his arguments on the political question, thus:
It is an undeniable fact that this case has its source from the 1971 elections for municipal mayoralty. Unsatisfied
with the counting of votes held by the Board of Canvassers, the herein protestant filed this present case. And
before the termination of the same and pending trial, the Filipino people in the exercise of their free will and
sovereign capacity approved a NEW CONSTITUTION, thus a NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT-PARLIAMENTARY
IN FORM was enforced. We find this provision under Article XI of the New Constitution, which provides:
SEC. 2. The National Assembly shall enact a local government code which may not thereafter be amended except
by a majority vote of all its members, defining a more responsive and accountable local government structure with
an effective system of recall, allocating among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities,
and resources, and providing for the qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers, functions, and
duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. However,
any change in the existing form of local government shall not take effect until ratified by a majority of the votes cast](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-19-2048.jpg)
![relate merely to a question of the horizontal distribution of powers." It involves a matter which 'the sovereign has
entrusted to the so-called political departments or has reserved to be settled by its own extra-governmental action."
The present Government functions under the new Constitution which has become effective through political action.
Judicial power presupposes an established government and an effective constitution. If it decides at all as a court,
it necessarily affirms the existence and authority of the Government under which it is exercising judicial power.
The Court is not unaware of provisions of the new Constitution, particularly Sections 7 and 8, Article XVII
(Transitory Provisions) decreeing that all existing laws not inconsistent with the new Constitution shall remain
operative until amended, modified, or repealed by the National Assembly, and that all courts existing at the time of
the ratification of the said new Constitution shall continue and exercise their jurisdiction until otherwise provided by
law in accordance with the new Constitution, and all cases pending in said courts shall be heard, tried and
determined under the laws then in force. Again, to the mind of the Court, these refer to matters raised in the
enforcement of existing laws or in the invocation of a court's jurisdiction which have not been "entrusted to the so-
called political department or has reserved to be settled by its own extra governmental action.
Hence, this petition.
We reverse.
The thrust of the aforesaid political question theory of respondent Yu is that the 1973 Constitution, through Section
9 of Article XVII thereof, protected only those incumbents, like him, at the time of its ratification and effectivity and
are the only ones authorized to continue in office and their term of office as extended now depends on the pleasure
of, as the same has been entrusted or committed to, the incumbent President of the Philippines or the Legislative
Department; and that Section 2 of Article XI thereof entrusted to the National Assembly the revamp of the entire
local government structure by the enactment of a local government code, thus presenting a question of policy, the
necessity and expediency of which are outside the range of judicial review. In short, for the respondent Judge to
still continue assuming jurisdiction over the pending election protest of petitioner is for him to take cognizance of a
question or policy "in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislative or Executive
branch of the government."
I
There is an imperative need to re-state pronouncements of this Court on the new Constitution which are decisive in
the resolution of the political question theory of respondent Yu.
WE ruled:
1. That Section 9 of Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution did not render moot and academic pending election
protest cases (Santos vs. Castañeda, 65 SCRA 114 [1975]; Euipilag vs. Araula, 60 SCRA 211 [1974]; Nunez vs.
Averia, 57 SCRA 726 [1974]; Parades vs. Abad, L-36927, Sunga vs. Mosueda, L-37715, Valley vs. Caro, L-38331,
56 SCRA 522, [1974]).
2. That "the constitutional grant of privilege to continue in office, made by the new Constitution for the benefit of
persons who were incumbent officials or employees of the Government when the new Constitution took effect,
cannot be fairly construed as indiscriminately encompassing every person who at the time happened to be
performing the duties of an elective office, albeit under protest or contest" and that "subject to the constraints
specifically mentioned in Section 9, Article XVII of the Transitory Provisions, it neither was, nor could have been the
intention of the framers of our new fundamental law to disregard and shunt aside the statutory right of a condidate
for elective position who, within the time-frame prescribed in the Election Code of 1971, commenced proceedings
beamed mainly at the proper determination in a judicial forum of a proclaimed candidate-elect's right to the
contested office."' (Santos vs. Castañeda, supra); and We rationalized that "the Constitutional Convention could not
have intended, as in fact it .did not intend, to shielf or protect those who had been unduly elected. To hold that the
right of the herein private respondents to the respective offices which they are now holding, may no longer be
subject to question, would be tantamount to giving a stamp of approval to what could have been an election victory
characterized by fraud, threats, intimidation, vote buying, or other forms of irregularities prohibited by the Election
Code to preserve inviolate the sanctity of the ballot." (Parades, Sunga and Valley cases, supra).
3. That "the right of the private respondents (protestees) to continue in office indefinitely arose not only by virtue of](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-21-2048.jpg)
![inoperative even in the light of Proclamation No. 1081 of September 21, 1972 and Proclamation No. 1104 of
January 17, 1973, placing the whole Philippines under martial law. While the members of the Court are not agreed
on whether or not particular instances of attack against the validity of certain Presidential decrees raise political
questions which the Judiciary would not interfere with, there is unanimity among Us in the view that it is for the
Court rather than the Executive to determine whether or not We may take cognizance of any given case involving
the validity of acts of the Executive Department purportedly under the authority of the martial law proclamations"
(Lina vs. Purisima, 3 PHILAJUR 605, 610-611, 82 SCRA 344 [1978]).
II
1. In the light of the foregoing pronouncements, We hold that the electoral protest case herein involved has
remained a justiciable controversy. No political question has ever been interwoven into this case. Nor is there any
act of the incumbent President or the Legislative Department to be indirectly reviewed or interfered with if the
respondent Judge decides the election protest. The term "political question" connotes what it means in ordinary
parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which under the Constitution, are to be
decidedby the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure" (Tañada vs. Cuenco, L-1052, Feb. 28, 1957). A broader definition
was advanced by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan in Baker vs. Carr (369 U.S. 186 [1962]): "Prominent on the
surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment
of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial
discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect
due coordinate branches of the government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision
already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on
one question" (p. 217). And Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, then an Associate Justice, of this Court fixed the
limits of the term, thus: "The term has been made applicable to controversies clearly non -judicial and therefore
beyond its jurisdiction or to an issue involved in a case appropriately subject to its cognizance, as to which there
has been a prior legislative or executive determination to which deference must be paid (Cf. Vera vs. Avelino, 77
Phil. 192 [1946]; Lopez vs. Roxas, L-25716, July 28, 1966, 17 SCRA 756; Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections,
L-28196, Nov. 9, 1967, 21 SCRA 774). It 'has likewise been employed loosely to characterize a suit where the
party proceeded against is the President or Congress, or any branch thereof (Cf. Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil. 62 [1937];
Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192 [1946]). If to be delimited with accuracy; 'political questions' should refer to such as
would under the Constitution be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full
discretionary authority is vested either in the President or Congress. It is thus beyond the competence of the
judiciary to pass upon. ..." (Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448, 504-505 [1971]).
2. The only issue in the electoral protest case dismissed by respondent Judge on the ground of political question is
who between protestant — herein petitioner — and protestee — herein respondent Yu — was the duly elected
mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan, and legally entitled to enjoy the rights, privileges and emoluments appurtenant
thereto and to discharge the functions, duties and obli gations of the position. If the protestee's election is upheld by
the respondent Judge, then he continues in office; otherwise, it is the protestant, herein petitioner. That is the only
consequence of a resolution of the issue therein involved — a purely justiciable question or controversy as it
implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or ommissionviolative of said right, and a remedy,
granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right (Tan vs. Republic, 107 Phil. 632-633 [1960]). Before and after
the ratification and effectivity of the New Constitution, the nature of the aforesaid issue as well as the
consequences of its resolution by the Court, remains the same as above-stated.
3. Any judgment to be made on that issue will not in any way collide or interfere with the mandate of Section 9 of
Article XVII of the New Constitution, as it will merely resolve who as between protestant and protestee is the duly
elected mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan; hence, entitled to enjoy the extended term as mandated by said provision
of the New Constitution. As construed by this Court, the elective officials referred to in Section 9 of Article XVII are
limited to those duly elected as the right to said extended term was not personal to whosoever was incumbent at
the time of the ratification and effectivity of the New Constitution. Nor would such judgment preempt, collide or
interfere with the power or discretion entrusted by the New Constitution to the incumbent President or the
Legislative Department, with respect to the extended term of the duly elected incumbents; because whoever
between protestant and protestee is declared the duly elected mayor will be subject always to whatever action the
President or the Legislative Department will take pursuant thereto.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-23-2048.jpg)
![The procedure outlined in the Constitution for the organization, of the Electoral Tribunals was adopted in response
to the demands of the common weal, and it has been held that where a statute is founded on public policy, those to
whom it applies should not be permitted to waive its provisions" (82 C. J. S., 874). Besides, there can be no waiver
without an intent to such effect, which Senator Tañada did not have. Again, the alleged waiver or exhaustion of his
rights does not justify the exercise thereof by a person or party, other than that to which it is vested exclusively by
the Constitution.
The rule estoppel is that "whenever a party has, by his declaration, act or omissions, intentionally and deliberately
led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in a litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it" (Rule 69, sec. 68 [a], Rules of Court). In the case at bar,
petitioner Senator Tañada did not lead the Senate to believe that Senator Primicias could nominate Senators
Cuenco and Delgado. On the contrary, said petitioner repeatedly asserted that his was the exclusive right to make
the nomination. He, likewise, specifically contested said nomination of Senators Cuenco and Delgado. Again, the
rule on estoppel applies to questions of fact, not of law, about the truth of which the other party is ignorant (see
Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3, pp. 490, 495). Such is not the nature of the situation that
confronted Senator Tañada and the other members of the Senate. Lastly, the case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa (66
Phil., 615), cited by respondents, is not in point. Judge Zandueta assumed office by virtue of an appointment, the
legality of which he later on assailed. In the case at bar, the nomination and election of Senator Tañada as member
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal was separate, distinct and independent from the nomination and election of
Senators Cuenco and Delgado.
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Senate may not elect, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, those
Senators who have not been nominated by the political parties specified in the Constitution; that the party having
the largest number of votes in the Senate may nominate not more than three (3) members thereof to said Electoral
Tribunal; that the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate has the exclusive right to nominate
the other three (3) Senators who shall sit as members in the Electoral Tribun al; that neither these three (3)
Senators, nor any of them, may be nominated by a person or party other than the one having the second largest
number of votes in the Senate or its representative therein; that the Committee on Rules for the Senate has no
standing to validly make such nomination and that the nomination of Senators Cuenco and Delgado by Senator
Primicias, and the election of said respondents by the Senate, as members of said Tribunal, are null and void ab
initio.
As regards respondents Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes, we are not prepared
to hold, however, that their appointments were null and void. Although recommended by Senators Cuenco and
Delgado, who are not lawful members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, they were appointed by its Chairman,
presumably, with the consent of the majority of the de jure members of said body 14 or, pursuant to the Rules
thereof. At any rate, as held in Suanes vs. Chief Accountant (supra), the election of its personnel is an int ernal
matter falling within the jurisdiction and control of said body, and there is every reason to believe that it will,
hereafter take appropriate measures, in relation to the four (4) respondents abovementioned, conformably with the
spirit of the Constitution and of, the decision in the case at bar.
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that, respondents Senators Mariano Jesus Cuenco and
Francisco A. Delgado have not been duly elected as Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, that they are not
entitled to act as such and that they should be, as they are hereby, enjoined from exercising the powers and duties
of Members of said Electoral Tribunal and from acting in such capacity in connection with Senate Electoral Case
No. 4 thereof. With the qualification stated above, the petition is dismissed, as regards respondents Alfredo Cruz,
Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes. Without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so
ordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., and Felix, JJ., concur.
Paras, C.J., dissenting:.
In 1939, Section (4) of Article VI of the Philippine Constitution provided that "There shall be an Electoral
Commission composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six
members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by the party having the largest
number of votes, and three by the party having the second largest number of votes therein." As all the members of
the National Assembly then belonged to the Nacionalista Party and a belief arose that it was impossible to comply](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-38-2048.jpg)
![1 Casanovas vs. Hord, 8 Phil., 125; Omo vs. Insular Gov't., 11 Phil., 67; Weigall vs. Shuster, 11 Phil., 340;
Barrameda vs. Moir, 25 Phil., 44; Hamilton vs. McGirr, 30 Phil., 563; CompaniaGral. deTabacos vs. Board of Public
Utility Commissioners, 34 Phil., 136; Central Capiz vs. Ramirez, 40 Phil., 883; Concepcion vs. Paredes, 42 Phil
599; McDaniel vs. Apacible, 42 Phil., 749; U. S. vs. Ang Tan Ho, 43 Phil., 1; People vs. Pomar, 46 Phil., 440.
Agcaoili vs. Saguitan, 48 Phil., 676; Gov't. vs. Springer, 50 Phil., 259; Gov't. us. Agoncillo, 50 Phil., 348; Gov't. vs.
El Hogar Filipino, 50 Phil, 399; Manila Electric vs. Pasay Transp., 57 Phil., 600; Angara vs. Electoral Commission,
supra; People vs. Vera, 65 Phil., 56; Vargas vs. Rilloraza, 45 Off. Gaz., 3847; Endencia vs. David, 49 Off.Gaz.,
A822; Rutter vs. Esteban, 49 Off. Gaz., 1807; Comm. investment vs. Garcia, 49 Off. Gaz., 1801; Marbury vs.
Madison, 1 Cranch 137; Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; Hepburn vs. Griswold, 8 Wall.603; Knox vs. Lee, 12 Wall.
457; Civil Rights Cases [U. S. vs. M. Stanley; U. S. vs. M. Ryan, U. S. vs. S. Nichols; U. S. vs. Singleton; Robins on
vs. and Charleston Railroad Co.], 109 U. S. 3 Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S.
601; Fairbanks vs. U. S., 181 U. S. 286.
2 Which, insofar as pertinent to the issues in the case at bar, is substantially identical to each of the Electoral
Tribunals under the Constitution as amended.
3 Araneta vs. Dinglasan, Barredo vs. Commission on Elections, and Rodriguez vs. Teasurer of the Philippines, 84
Phil., 368, 45 Off. Gaz., 4411, 4457; Nacionalista Party vs. Bautista, 85 Phil., 101, 47 Off.Gaz., 2356; Lacson vs.
Romero, 84 Phil., 740, 47 Off. Gaz., 1778; De los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil., 289, 48 Off. Gaz., 1787; Lacson vs.
Roque, 92 Phil., 456, 49 Off.Gaz., 93; JoverLedesma vs. Borra, 93 Phil., 506, 49 Off.Gaz., 2765; Ramos vs.
Avelino, 97 Phil., 844, 51 Off.Gaz., 5607.
_Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä_ 4 "From the very nature of the American system of
government with Constitutions prescribing the jurisdiction and powers of each of the three branches of government,
it has devolved on the judiciary to determine whether the acts of the other two departments are in harmony with the
fundamental law. All the departments are of the government are unquestionably entitled and compelled to judge of
the Constitution for themselves; but, in doing so, they act under the obligations imposed in the instrument, and in
the order of time pointed out by it. When the, judiciary has once spoken, if the acts of the other two departments
are held to be unauthorized or despotic, in violation of the Constitution or the vested rights of the citizen, they
cease to be operative or binding.
xxx x xx x xx.
"Since the Constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as the other departments of
government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the court are not at liberty to overlook or disregard
its commands. It is their duty in authorized proceedings to give effect to the existing Constitution and to obey all
constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom of such provisions.
"In accordance with principles which are basic, the rule is fixed that the duty in a proper case to declare a law
unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the deliberate judgment of the
tribunal before which the validity of the enactment is directly drawn into question. When it is clear that a statute
transgresses the authority vested in the legislature by the Constitution, it is the duty of the courts to declare the ac t
unconstitutional cause they cannot shrink from it without violating their oaths of office. This duty of the courts to
maintain the Constitution as the fundamental law of the state is imperative and unceasing; and, as Chief Justice
Marshal said, whenever a statute is in violation of the fundamental law, the courts must so adjudge and thereby
give effect to the Constitution. Any other course would lead to the destruction of the Constitution. Since the
question as to the constitutionality of a statute is a judicial matter, the courts will not decline the exercise of
jurisdiction upon the suggestion that action might be taken by political agencies in disregard of the judgment of the
judicial tribunals." (11 Am. Jur., pp. 712-713, 713-715; emphasis supplied).
5 Rich vs. Board of Canvassers, 59 N. W. 183; State vs. McBride, 29 Am. Dec. 636; Collier vs. Frierson, 24 Ala.
100; State vs. Swift, 69 Ind. 505; State vs. Timme, 11 N.W. 785; Prohibition and Amendment Cases, 24 Kan. 700;
Kadderly vs. Portland, 74 Pac. 710; Koehler vs. Hill, 14 N. W. 738; State vs. Brockhart, 84 S. W. 1064; University
vs. Melver, 72 N. C. 76; Westinghausen vs. People, 6 N.W. 641; State vs. Powell, 27 South, 927; Bott vs. Wurtz,
43 Atl. 744; Rice vs. Palmer, 96 S. W. 396; State vs. Tooker, 37 Pac. 840.
6 "The procedure or manner of nomination cannot possibly affect the, constitutional mandate that the Assembly is
entitled to six in the Electoral Commission. When for lack of a minority representation in the Assembly the power to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-42-2048.jpg)
![serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands
that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure." The same policy
has since then been consistently followed by the Court, as in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 8 where we
held through Chief Justice Fernando:
In the course of the deliberations, a serious procedural objection was raised by five members of the Court. It is their
view that respondent Commission on Elections not being sought to be restrained from performing any specific act,
this suit cannot be characterized as other than a mere request for an advisory opinion. Such a view, from the
remedial law standpoint, has much to recommend it. Nonetheless, a majority would affirm the original stand that
under the circumstances, it could still rightfully be treated as a petition for prohibition.
The language of justice Laurel fits the case: "All await the decision of this Court on the constitutional question.
Considering, therefore, the importance which the instant case has assumed and to prevent multiplicity of suits,
strong reasons of public policy demand that [its] constitutionality ... be now resolved.' It may likewise be added that
the exceptional character of the situation that confronts us, the paramount public interest, and the undeniable
necessity for ruling, the national elections being barely six months away, reinforce our stand. It would appear
undeniable, therefore, that before us is an appropriate invocation of our jurisdiction to prevent the enforcement of
an alleged unconstitutional statute. We are left with no choice then; we must act on the matter.
Coming now to the more crucial question, the Court notes that both the petitioner and the respondent are invoking
the case of Cunanan v. Tan to support their respective positions. It is best, therefore, to make a quick review of that
case for a proper disposition of this one.
In the election for the House of Representatives held in 1961, 72 seats were won by the Nacionalista Party, 29 by
the Liberal Party and 1 by an independent. Accordingly, the representation of the chamber in the Commission on
Appointments was apportioned to 8 members from the Nacionalista Party and 4 from the Liberal Party.
Subsequently, 25 members of the Nacionalista Party, professing discontent over the House leadership, made
common cause with the Liberal Party and formed what was called the Allied Majority to install a new Speaker and
reorganize the chamber. Included in this reorganization was the House representation in the Commission on
appointments where three of the Nacionalista congressmen originally chosen were displaced by three of their party
colleagues who had joined the Allied Majority.
Petitioner Carlos Cunanan's ad interim appointment as Deputy Administrator of the Reforestration Administration
was rejected by the Commission on Appointments as thus reorganized and respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was
thereafter designated in his place. Cunanan then came to this Court, contending that the rejection of his
appointment was null and void because the Commission itself was invalidly constituted.
The Court agreed. It noted that the Allied Majority was a merely temporary combination as the Nacionalista
defectors had not disaffiliated from their party and permanently joined the new political group. Officially, they were
still members of the Nacionalista Party. The reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was invalid
because it was not based on the proportional representation of the political parties in the House of Representatives
as required by the Constitution. The Court held:
... In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if du to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature,
like the one that has led to the formation of the so-called "Allied Majority," does not suffice to authorize a
reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise the Commission on Appointments
may have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our
Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission on Appointments, at
the mercy of each House of Congress.
The petitioner vigorously argues that the LDP is not the permanent political party contemplated in the Constitution
because it has not been registered in accordance with Article IX-B, Section 2(5), in relation to the other provisions
of the Constitution. He stresses that the so-called party has not yet achieved stability and suggests it might be no
different from several other political groups that have died "a-bornin'," like the LINA, or have subsequently
floundered, like the UNIDO.
The respondent also cites Cunanan but from a different viewpoint. According to him, that case expressly allows
reorganization at any time to reflect changes in the political alignments in Congress, provided only that such](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-150913073635-lva1-app6892/75/241716493-separation-of-powers-cases-57-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to 241716493 separation-of-powers-cases
241716493 separation-of-powers-cases
- 1. Get Homework/Assignment Done Homeworkping.com HomeworkHelp https://www.homeworkping.com/ Research Paper help https://www.homeworkping.com/ Online Tutoring https://www.homeworkping.com/ click here for freelancing tutoring sites A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988 IN RE: DESIGNATION OF JUDGE RODOLFO U. MANZANO AS MEMBER OF THE ILOCOS NORTE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE. PADILLA, J.: On 4 July 1988, Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, Executive Judge, RTC, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, Branch 19, sent this Court a letter which reads: Hon. Marcelo Fernan Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Manila Thru channels: Hon. Leo Medialdea Court Administrator Supreme Court of the Philippines Sir: By Executive Order RF6-04 issued on June 21, 1988 by the Honorable Provincial Governor of Ilocos Norte, Hon. Rodolfo C. Farinas, I was designated as a member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice created pursuant to Presidential Executive Order No. 856 of 12 December 1986, as amended by Executive Order No. 326 of June 1, 1988. In consonance with Executive Order RF6-04, the Honorable Provincial Governor of Ilocos Norte issued my appointment as a member of the Committee. For your ready reference, I am enclosing herewith machine copies of Executive Order RF6-04 and the appointment. Before I may accept the appointment and enter in the discharge of the powers and duties of the position as member of the Ilocos (Norte) Provincial Committee on Justice, may I have the honor to request for the issuance by the Honorable Supreme Court of a Resolution, as follows: (1) Authorizing me to accept the appointment and to as assume and discharge the powers and duties attached to the said position; (2) Considering my membership in the Committee as neither violative of the Independence of the Judiciary nor a violation of Section 12, Article VIII, or of the second paragraph of Section .7, Article IX (B), both of the Constitution, and will not in any way amount to an abandonment of my present position as Executive Judge of Branch XIX, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, and as a member of the Judiciary; and
- 2. (3) Consider mymembership in the said Committee as part of the primary functions of an Executive Judge. May I please be favored soon by your action on this request. Very respectfully yours, (Sgd) RODOLFO U. MANZANO Judge An examination of Executive Order No. 856, as amended, reveals that Provincial/City Committees on Justice are created to insure the speedy disposition of cases of detainees, particularly those involving the poor and indigent ones, thus alleviating jail congestion and improving local jail conditions. Among the functions of the Committee are— 3.3 Receive complaints against any apprehending officer, jail warden, final or judge who may be found to have committed abuses in the discharge of his duties and refer the same to proper authority for appropriate action; 3.5 Recommend revision of any law or regulation which is believed prejudicial to the proper administration of criminal justice. It is evident that such Provincial/City Committees on Justice perform administrative functions. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for; their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence (Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services Inc., vs. Tapucar, SP-07599-R, 29 September 1978, Blacks Law Dictionary). Furthermore, under Executive Order No. 326 amending Executive Order No. 856, it is provided that— Section 6. Supervision.—The Provincial/City Committees on Justice shall be under the supervision of the Secretary of justice Quarterly accomplishment reports shall be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Justice. Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shag not be designated to any agency performing quasi- judicial or administrative functions (Section 12, Art. VIII, Constitution). Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice, which discharges a administrative functions, will be in violation of the Constitution, the Court is constrained to deny his request. Former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando in his concurring opinion in the case of Garcia vs. Macaraig (39 SCRA 106) ably sets forth: 2. While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. That is implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. The essence of the trust reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher court, as was emphasized by Justice Barredo, can pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or legislative official, however eminent. It is indispensable that there be no exception to the rigidity of such a norm if he is, as expected, to be confined to the task of adjudication. Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no less than the maintenance of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied with nothing less. This declaration does not mean that RTC Judges should adopt an attitude of monastic insensibility or unbecoming indifference to Province/City Committee on Justice. As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government. Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of suc h structure. As public officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges should render assistance to said Committees to help promote the laudable purposes for which they exist, but only when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties. ACCORDINGLY, the aforesaid request of Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano is DENIED.
- 3. SO ORDERED. Cruz, Paras,Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions GUTIERREZ, JR., J., dissenting: The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the judiciary to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions (Section 12, Article VIII, Constitution.). Insofar as the term "quasi-judicial" is concerned, it has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from participating in the work of any administrative agency which adjudicates disputes and controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction. The issue involved in this case is where to draw the line insofar as administrative functions are concerned. "Administrative functions" as used in Section 12 refers to the executive machinery of government and the performance by that machinery of governmental acts. It refers to the management actions, determinations, and orders of executive officials as they administer the laws and try to make government effective. There is an element of positive action, of supervision or control. Applying the definition given in the opinion of the majority which reads: Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence (Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services Inc. v. Tapucar, S.P-07599-R, 29 September 1978, Black's Law Dictionary. ) we can readily see that membership in the Provincial or City Committee on Justice would not involve any regulation or control over the conduct and affairs of individuals. Neither will the Committee on Justice promulgate rules and regulations nor exercise any quasi-legislative functions. Its work is purely advisory. I do not see anything wrong in a member of the judiciary joining any study group which concentrates on the administration of justice as long as the group merely deliberates on problems involving the speedy disposition of cases particularly those involving the poor and needy litigants or detainees, pools the expertise and experiences of the members, and limits itself to recommendations which may be adopted or rejected by those who have the power to legislate or administer the particular function involved in their implementation. We who are Judges cannot operate in a vacuum or in a tight little world of our own. The administration of justice cannot be pigeonholed into neat compartments with Judges, Fiscals, Police, Wardens, and various other officials concerned erecting water-tight barriers against one another and limiting our interaction to timidly peeping over these unnecessary and impractical barriers into one another's work, all the while blaming the Constitution for such a quixotic and unreal interpretation. As intimated in the majority opinion, we should not be monastically insensible or indifferent to projects or movements cogitating on possible solutions to our common problems of justice and afterwards forwarding their findings to the people, public or private, where these findings would do the most good. The majority opinion suggests the giving of assistance by Judges to the work of the Committees on Justice. Assistance is a vague term. Can Judges be designated as observers? Advisers? Consultants? Is it the act of being "designated" which is proscribed by the Constitution or is it participation in the prohibited functions? If judges cannot become members, why should they be allowed or even encouraged to assist these Committees The line drawn by the majority is vague and unrealistic.
- 4. The constitutional provisionis intended to shield Judges from participating in activities which may compromise their independence or hamper their work. Studying problems involving the administration of justice and arriving at purely recommendatory solutions do not in any way involve the encroachment of. the judiciary into executive or legislative functions or into matters which are none of its concerns. Much less is it an encroachment of the other departments into judicial affairs. As the visible representation of the law and of justice in his community, the Judge should not shy away from public activities which do not interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his office, but which, in fact, enhance his effectiveness as a Judge. He cannot stop mingling in civic intercourse or shut himself into solitary seclusion. The Committees on Justice will also be immensely benefited by the presence of Judges in the study groups. The work of the Committees is quite important. Let it not be said that the Judges the officials most concerned with justice have hesitated to join in such a worthy undertaking because of a strained interpretation of their functions. It is well for this Court to be generally cautious, conservative or restrictive when it interprets provisions of the Constitution or statutes vesting us with powers or delimit the exercise of our jurisdiction and functions. However, we should not overdo it. The basic principles of constitutional interpretation apply as well to the provisions which define or circumscribe our powers and functions as they do to the provisions governing the other dependents of government. The Court should not adopt a strained construction which impairs its own efficiency to meet the responsibilities brought about by the changing times and conditions of society. The familiar quotation is apt in this case—constitutional provisions are interpreted by the spirit which vivifies and not by the letter which killeth. I, therefore, dissent from the majority opinion and vote to allow Judge Rodolfo U. Fernan C.J., Narvasa and Griño-Aquino, JJ., join in Gutierrez dissent. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting: I hesitate to give such a restrictive and impractical interpretation to Section 12, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, and thus join the dissent of Justice Gutierrez, Jr. What I believe is contemplated by the Constitutional prohibition is designation, for example, to such quas i-judicial bodies as the SEC, or administrative agencies like the BIR. Those are full -time positions involving running the affairs of government, which will interfere with the discharge of judicial functions or totally remove a Judge/Justice from the performance of his regular functions. The Committee on Justice cannot be likened to such an administrative agency of government. It is a study group with recommendatory functions. In fact, membership by members of the Bench in said committee is called for by reason of the primary functions of their position. The matter of supervision by the Secretary of Justice provided for under E.O. No. 326 amending E.O. No. 856, need not be a cause for concern. That supervision is confined to Committee work and will by no mea ns extend to the performance of judicial functions per se. Manzano to become a member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice. G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936 JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner, vs. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO, and DIONISIO C. MAYOR, respondents. Godofredo Reyes for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Hilado for respondent Electoral Commission. Pedro Ynsua in his own behalf. No appearance for other respondents. LAUREL, J.:
- 5. This is anoriginal action instituted in this court by the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission, one of the respondents, from taking further cognizance of the protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, another respondent, against the election of said petitioner as member of the National Assembly for the first assembly district of the Province of Tayabas. The facts of this case as they appear in the petition and as admitted by the respondents are as follows: (1) That in the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, and the respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor, were candidates voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of the Province of Tayabas; (2) That on October 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers, proclaimed the petitioner as member -elect of the National Assembly for the said district, for having received the most number of votes; (3) That on November 15, 1935, the petitioner took his oath of office; (4) That on December 3, 1935, the National Assembly in session assembled, passed the following resolution: [No. 8] RESOLUCION CONFIRMANDO LAS ACTAS DE AQUELLOS DIPUTADOS CONTRA QUIENES NO SE HA PRESENTADO PROTESTA. Se resuelve:Quelasactas de eleccion de los Diputados contra quienes no se hubierepresentadodebidamenteunaprotesta antes de la adopcion de la presenteresolucionsean, comopor la presente, son aprobadas y confirmadas. Adoptada, 3 dediciembre, 1935. (5) That on December 8, 1935, the herein respondent Pedro Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against the election of the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, being the only protest filed after the passage of Resolutions No. 8 aforequoted, and praying, among other-things, that said respondent be declared elected member of the National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas, or that the election of said position be nullified; (6) That on December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted a resolution, paragraph 6 of which provides: 6. La Comision no consideraraningunaprotestaque no se hayapresentado en o antes de este dia. (7) That on December 20, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, one of the respondents in the aforesaid protest, filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly was adopted in the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative to prescribe the period during which protests against the election of its members should be presented; (b) that the aforesaid resolution has for its object, and is the accepted formula for, the limitation of said period; and (c) that the protest in question was filed out of the prescribed period; (8) That on December 27, 1935, the herein respondent, Pedro Ynsua, filed an "Answer to the Motion of Dismissal" alleging that there is no legal or constitutional provision barring the presentation of a protest against the election of a member of the National Assembly after confirmation; (9) That on December 31, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, filed a "Reply" to the aforesaid "Answer to the Motion of Dismissal"; (10) That the case being submitted for decision, the Electoral Commission promulgated a resolution on January 23, 1936, denying herein petitioner's "Motion to Dismiss the Protest." The application of the petitioner sets forth the following grounds for the issuance of the writ prayed for:
- 6. (a) That theConstitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the electoral Commission solely as regards the merits of contested elections to the National Assembly; (b) That the Constitution excludes from said jurisdiction the power to regulate the proceedings of said election contests, which power has been reserved to the Legislative Department of the Government or the National Assembly; (c) That like the Supreme Court and other courts created in pursuance of the Constitution, whose exclusive jurisdiction relates solely to deciding the merits of controversies submitted to them for decision and to matters involving their internal organization, the Electoral Commission can regulate its proceedings only if the National Assembly has not availed of its primary power to so regulate such proceedings; (d) That Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly is, therefore, valid and should be respected and obeyed; (e) That under paragraph 13 of section 1 of the ordinance appended to the Constitution and paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Tydings-McDuffie Law (No. 127 of the 73rd Congress of the United States) as well as under section 1 and 3 (should be sections 1 and 2) of article VIII of the Constitution, this Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the fundamental question herein raised because it involves an interpretation of the Constitution of the Philippines. On February 25, 1936, the Solicitor-General appeared and filed an answer in behalf of the respondent Electoral Commission interposing the following special defenses: (a) That the Electoral Commission has been created by the Constitution as an instrumentality of the Legislative Department invested with the jurisdiction to decide "all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly"; that in adopting its resolution of December 9, 1935, fixing this date as the last day for the presentation of protests against the election of any member of the National Assembly, it acted within its jurisdiction and in the legitimate exercise of the implied powers granted it by the Constitution to adopt the rules and regulations essential to carry out the power and functions conferred upon the same by the fundamental law; that in adopting its resolution of January 23, 1936, overruling the motion of the petitioner to dismiss the election protest in question, and declaring itself with jurisdiction to take cognizance of said protest, it acted in the legitimate exercise of its quasi-judicial functions a an instrumentality of the Legislative Department of the Commonwealth Government, and hence said act is beyond the judicial cognizance or control of the Supreme Court; (b) That the resolution of the National Assembly of December 3, 1935, confirming the election of the members of the National Assembly against whom no protest had thus far been filed, could not and did not deprive the electoral Commission of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of election protests filed within the time that might be set by its own rules: (c) That the Electoral Commission is a body invested with quasi-judicial functions, created by the Constitution as an instrumentality of the Legislative Department, and is not an "inferior tribunal, or corporation, or board, or person" within the purview of section 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against which prohibition would lie. The respondent Pedro Ynsua, in his turn, appeared and filed an answer in his own behalf on March 2, 1936, setting forth the following as his special defense: (a) That at the time of the approval of the rules of the Electoral Commission on December 9, 1935, there was no existing law fixing the period within which protests against the election of members of the National Assembly should be filed; that in fixing December 9, 1935, as the last day for the filing of protests against the election of members of the National Assembly, the Electoral Commission was exercising a power impliedly conferred upon it by the Constitution, by reason of its quasi-judicial attributes; (b) That said respondent presented his motion of protest before the Electoral Commission on December 9, 1935, the last day fixed by paragraph 6 of the rules of the said Electoral Commission; (c) That therefore the Electoral Commission acquired jurisdiction over the protest filed by said respondent and over the parties thereto, and the resolution of the Electoral Commission of January 23, 1936, denying petitioner's motion to dismiss said protest was an act within the jurisdiction of the said commission, and is not reviewable by means of
- 7. a writ ofprohibition; (d) That neither the law nor the Constitution requires confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of its members, and that such confirmation does not operate to limit the period within which protests should be filed as to deprive the Electoral Commission of jurisdiction over protest filed subsequent thereto; (e) That the Electoral Commission is an independent entity created by the Constitution, endowed with quasi-judicial functions, whose decision are final and unappealable; ( f) That the electoral Commission, as a constitutional creation, is not an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, within the terms of sections 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that neither under the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of article II (should be article VIII) of the Constitution and paragraph 13 of section 1 of the Ordinance appended thereto could it be subject in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions to a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court; (g) That paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Tydings-McDuffie Law (No. 127 of the 73rd Congress of the united States) has no application to the case at bar. The case was argued before us on March 13, 1936. Before it was submitted for decision, the petitioner prayed for the issuance of a preliminary writ of injunction against the respondent Electoral Commission which petition was denied "without passing upon the merits of the case" by resolution of this court of March 21, 1936. There was no appearance for the other respondents. The issues to be decided in the case at bar may be reduced to the following two principal propositions: 1. Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy upon the foregoing related facts, and in the affirmative, 2. Has the said Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to the cognizance of the protest filed the election of the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly? We could perhaps dispose of this case by passing directly upon the merits of the controversy. However, the question of jurisdiction having been presented, we do not feel justified in evading the issue. Being a caseprimæimpressionis, it would hardly be consistent with our sense of duty to overlook the broader aspect of the question and leave it undecided. Neither would we be doing justice to the industry and vehemence of counsel were we not to pass upon the question of jurisdiction squarely presented to our consideration. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. For example, the Chief Executive under our Constitution is so far made a check on the legislative power that this assent is required in the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the further check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly. The President has also the right to convene the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is necessary in the appointments of certain officers; and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain extent. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
- 8. But in themain, the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government. The overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties between the several departments, however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the one leaves off and the other begins. In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocat ion of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. As any human production, our Constitution is of course lacking perfection and perfectibility, but as much as it was within the power of our people, acting through their delegates to so provide, that instrument which is the expression of their sovereignty however limited, has established a republican government intended to operate and function as a harmonious whole, under a system of checks and balances, and subject to specific limitations and restrictions provided in the said instrument. The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers and agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are transcended it would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government along constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and the principles of good government mere political apothegms. Certainly, the limitation and restrictions embodied in our Constitution are real as they should be in any living constitution. In the United States where no express constitutional grant is found in their constitution, the possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to speak of its historical origin and development there, has been set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and a half centuries. In our case, this moderating power is granted, if not expressly, by clear implication from section 2 of article VIII of our constitution. The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial re view is limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lismota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dial ectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. More than that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the governments of the government. But much as we might postulate on the internal checks of power provided in our Constitution, it ought not the less to be remembered that, in the language of James Madison, the system itself is not "the chief palladium of constitutional liberty . . . the people who are authors of this blessing must also be its guardians . . . their eyes must be ever ready to mark, their voice to pronounce . . . aggression on the authority of their constitution." In the Last and ultimate analysis, then, must the success of our government in the unfolding years to come be tested in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts than in consultation rooms and court chambers. In the case at bar, the national Assembly has by resolution (No. 8) of December 3, 1935, confirmed the election of the herein petitioner to the said body. On the other hand, the Electoral Commission has by resolution adopted on December 9, 1935, fixed said date as the last day for the filing of protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the National Assembly as aforesaid. If, as contended by the petitioner, the resolution of the National Assembly has the effect of cutting off the power of the Electoral Commission to entertain protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, submitted after December 3, 1935, then the resolution of the Electoral Commission of December 9, 1935, is mere surplusage and had no effect. But, if, as contended by the respondents, the Electoral Commission has the sole power of regulating its proceedings to the exclusion of the National Assembly, then the resolution of December 9, 1935, by which the Electoral Commission fixed said date as the last day for filing protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, should be upheld.
- 9. Here is thenpresented an actual controversy involving as it does a conflict of a grave constitutional nature between the National Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral Commission on the other. From the very nature of the republican government established in our country in the light of American experience and of our own, upon the judicial department is thrown the solemn and inescapable obligation of interpreting the Constitution and defining constitutional boundaries. The Electoral Commission, as we shall have occasion to refer hereafter, is a constitutional organ, created for a specific purpose, namely to determine all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly. Although the Elector al Commission may not be interfered with, when and while acting within the limits of its authority, it does not follow that it is beyond the reach of the constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and that it is not subject to constitutional restrictions. The Electoral Commission is not a separate department of the government, and even if it were, conflicting claims of authority under the fundamental law between department powers and agencies of the government are necessarily determined by the judiciary in justifiable and appropriate cases. Discarding the English type and other European types of constitutional government, the framers of our constitution adopted the American type where the written constitution is interpreted and given effect by the judicial department. In some countries which have declined to follow the American example, provisions have been inserted in their constitutions prohibiting the courts from exercising the power to interpret the fundamental law. This is taken as a recognition of w hat otherwise would be the rule that in the absence of direct prohibition courts are bound to assume what is logically their function. For instance, the Constitution of Poland of 1921, expressly provides that courts shall have no power to examine the validity of statutes (art. 81, chap. IV). The former Austrian Constitution contained a similar declaration. In countries whose constitutions are silent in this respect, courts have assumed this power. This is true in Norway, Greece, Australia and South Africa. Whereas, in Czechoslovakia (arts. 2 and 3, Preliminary Law to constitutional Charter of the Czechoslovak Republic, February 29, 1920) and Spain (arts. 121-123, Title IX, Constitutional of the Republic of 1931) especial constitutional courts are established to pass upon the validity of ordinary laws. In our case, the nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a final constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of authority between two agencies created by the Constitution. Were we to decline to take cognizance of the controversy, who will determine the conflict? And if the conflict were left undecided and undetermined, would not a void be thus created in our constitutional system which may be in the long run prove destructive of the entire framework? To ask these questions is to answer them. Natura vacuum abhorret, so must we avoid exhaustion in our constitutional system. Upon principle, reason and authority, we are clearly of the opinion that upon the admitted facts of the present case, this court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject mater of the present controversy for the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly." Having disposed of the question of jurisdiction, we shall now proceed to pass upon the second proposition and determine whether the Electoral Commission has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in adopting its resolution of December 9, 1935, and in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation thereof by the Natio nal Assembly on December 3, 1935. As able counsel for the petitioner has pointed out, the issue hinges on the interpretation of section 4 of Article VI of the Constitution which provides: "SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Justice of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six Members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, and three by the party having the second largest number of vot es therein. The senior Justice in the Commission shall be its Chairman. The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly." It is imperative, therefore, that we delve into the origin and history of this constitutional provision and inquire into the intention of its framers and the people who adopted it so that we may properly appreciate its full meaning, import and significance. The original provision regarding this subject in the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (sec. 7, par. 5) laying down the rule that "the assembly shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members", was taken from clause 1 of section 5, Article I of the Constitution of the United States providing that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, . . . ." The Act of Congress of August 29, 1916 (sec. 18, par. 1) modified this provision by the insertion of the word "sole" as follows: "That the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, shall be the sole judges of the elections, returns, and qualifications of their elective members . . ." apparently in order to emphasize the exclusive the Legislative over the particular case s therein specified. This court has had occasion to characterize this grant of power to the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, as "full, clear and complete" (Veloso vs. Boards of Canvassers of Leyte and Samar [1919], 39 Phil., 886, 888.)
- 10. The first steptowards the creation of an independent tribunal for the purpose of deciding contested elections to the legislature was taken by the sub-committee of five appointed by the Committee on Constitutional Guarantees of the Constitutional Convention, which sub-committee submitted a report on August 30, 1934, recommending the creation of a Tribunal of Constitutional Security empowered to hear legislature but also against the election of executive officers for whose election the vote of the whole nation is required, as well as to initiate impeachment proceedings against specified executive and judicial officer. For the purpose of hearing legislative protests, the tribunal was to be composed of three justices designated by the Supreme Court and six members of the house of the legislature to which the contest corresponds, three members to be designed by the majority party and three by the minority, to be presided over by the Senior Justice unless the Chief Justice is also a member in which case the latter shall preside. The foregoing proposal was submitted by the Committee on Constitutional Guarantees to the Convention on September 15, 1934, with slight modifications consisting in the reduction of the legislative representation to four members, that is, two senators to be designated one each from the two major parties in the Senate and two representatives to be designated one each from the two major parties in the House of Representatives, and in awarding representation to the executive department in the persons of two representatives to be designated by the President. Meanwhile, the Committee on Legislative Power was also preparing its report. As submitted to the Convention on September 24, 1934 subsection 5, section 5, of the proposed Article on the Legislative Department, reads as follows: The elections, returns and qualifications of the members of either house and all cases contesting the election of any of their members shall be judged by an Electoral Commission, constituted, as to each House, by three members elected by the members of the party having the largest number of votes therein, three elected by the members of the party having the second largest number of votes, and as to its Chairman, one Justice of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice. The idea of creating a Tribunal of Constitutional Security with comprehensive jurisdiction as proposed by the Committee on Constitutional Guarantees which was probably inspired by the Spanish plan (art. 121, Constitution of the Spanish Republic of 1931), was soon abandoned in favor of the proposition of the Committee on Legislative Power to create a similar body with reduced powers and with specific and limited jurisdiction, to be d esignated as a Electoral Commission. The Sponsorship Committee modified the proposal of the Committee on Legislative Power with respect to the composition of the Electoral Commission and made further changes in phraseology to suit the project of adopting a unicameral instead of a bicameral legislature. The draft as finally submitted to the Convention on October 26, 1934, reads as follows: (6) The elections, returns and qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly and all cases contesting the election of any of its Members shall be judged by an Electoral Commission, composed of three members elected by the party having the largest number of votes in the National Assembly, three elected by the members of the party having the second largest number of votes, and three justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, the Commission to be presided over by one of said justices. During the discussion of the amendment introduced by Delegates Labrador, Abordo, and others, proposing to strike out the whole subsection of the foregoing draft and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "The National Assembly shall be the soled and exclusive judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the Members", the following illuminating remarks were made on the floor of the Convention in its session of December 4, 1934, as to the scope of the said draft: xxx x xx x xx Mr. VENTURA. Mr. President, we have a doubt here as to the scope of the meaning of the first four lines, paragraph 6, page 11 of the draft, reading: "The elections, returns and qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly and all cases contesting the election of any of its Members shall be judged by an Electoral Commission, . . ." I should like to ask from the gentleman from Capiz whether the election and qualification of the member whose elections is not contested shall also be judged by the Electoral Commission. Mr. ROXAS. If there is no question about the election of the members, there is nothing to be judg ed; that is why the word "judge" is used to indicate a controversy. If there is no question about the election of a member, there is nothing to be submitted to the Electoral Commission and there is nothing to be determined.
- 11. Mr. VENTURA. Butdoes that carry the idea also that the Electoral Commission shall confirm also the election of those whose election is not contested? Mr. ROXAS. There is no need of confirmation. As the gentleman knows, the action of the House of Representatives confirming the election of its members is just a matter of the rules of the assembly. It is not constitutional. It is not necessary. After a man files his credentials that he has been elected, that is sufficient, unless his election is contested. Mr. VENTURA. But I do not believe that that is sufficient, as we have observed that for purposes of the auditor, in the matter of election of a member to a legislative body, because he will not authorize his pay. Mr. ROXAS. Well, what is the case with regards to the municipal president who is elected? What happens with regards to the councilors of a municipality? Does anybody confirm their election? The municipal council does this: it makes a canvass and proclaims — in this case the municipal council proclaims who has been elected, and it ends there, unless there is a contest. It is the same case; there is no need on the part of the Electoral Commission unless there is a contest. The first clause refers to the case referred to by the gentleman from Cavite where one person tries to be elected in place of another who was declared elected. From example, in a case when the residence of the man who has been elected is in question, or in case the citizenship of the man who has been elected is in question. However, if the assembly desires to annul the power of the commission, it may do so by certain maneuvers upon its first meeting when the returns are submitted to the assembly. The purpose is to give to the Electoral Commission all the powers exercised by the assembly referring to the elections, returns and qualifications of the members. When there is no contest, there is nothing to be judged. Mr. VENTURA. Then it should be eliminated. Mr. ROXAS. But that is a different matter, I think Mr. Delegate. Mr. CINCO. Mr. President, I have a similar question as that propounded by the gentleman from Ilocos Norte when I arose a while ago. However I want to ask more questions from the delegate from Capiz. This paragraph 6 on page 11 of the draft cites cases contesting the election as separate from the first part of the sections which refers to elections, returns and qualifications. Mr. ROXAS. That is merely for the sake of clarity. In fact the cases of contested elections are already included in the phrase "the elections, returns and qualifications." This phrase "and contested elections" was inserted merely for the sake of clarity. Mr. CINCO. Under this paragraph, may not the Electoral Commission, at its own instance, refuse to confirm the elections of the members." Mr. ROXAS. I do not think so, unless there is a protest. Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. President, will the gentleman yield? THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman may yield, if he so desires. Mr. ROXAS. Willingly. Mr. LABRADOR. Does not the gentleman from Capiz believe that unless this power is granted to the assembly, the assembly on its own motion does not have the right to contest the election and qualification of its members? Mr. ROXAS. I have no doubt but that the gentleman is right. If this draft is retained as it is, even if two -thirds of the assembly believe that a member has not the qualifications provided by law, they cannot remove him for that reason. Mr. LABRADOR. So that the right to remove shall only be retained by the Electoral Commission.
- 12. Mr. ROXAS. Bythe assembly for misconduct. Mr. LABRADOR. I mean with respect to the qualifications of the members. Mr. ROXAS. Yes, by the Electoral Commission. Mr. LABRADOR. So that under this draft, no member of the assembly has the right to question the eligibility of its members? Mr. ROXAS. Before a member can question the eligibility, he must go to the Electoral Commission and make the question before the Electoral Commission. Mr. LABRADOR. So that the Electoral Commission shall decide whether the election is contested or not contested. Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir: that is the purpose. Mr. PELAYO. Mr. President, I would like to be informed if the Electoral Commission has power and authority to pass upon the qualifications of the members of the National Assembly even though that question has not been raised. Mr. ROXAS. I have just said that they have no power, because they can only judge. In the same session, the first clause of the aforesaid draft reading "The election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly and" was eliminated by the Sponsorship Committee in response to an amendment introduced by Delegates Francisco, Ventura, Vinzons, Rafols, Lim, Mumar and others. In explaining the difference between the original draft and the draft as amended, Delegate Roxas speaking for the Sponsorship Committee said: xxx x xx x xx Sr. ROXAS. La diferencia, señorPresidente, consistesolamente en obviar la objecionapuntadaporvariosDelegados al efecto de que la primeraclausula del draftque dice: "The elections, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly" pareceque da a la Comision Electoral la facultad de determinartambien la eleccion de los miembrosque no ha sidoprotestados y paraobviaresadificultad, creemosque la enmiendatienrazon en esesentido, sienmendamos el draft, de talmodoque se lea comosigue: "All cases contesting the election", de modoque los jueces de la Comision Electoral se limitaransolamente a los casos en quehayahabidoprotesta contra lasactas." Before the amendment of Delegate Labrador was voted upon the following interpellation also took place: El Sr. CONEJERO. Antes de votarse la enmienda, quisiera El Sr. PRESIDENTE. ¿Que dice el Comite? El Sr. ROXAS. Con mucho gusto. El Sr. CONEJERO. Tal comoesta el draft, dandotresmiembros a la mayoria, y otrostres a la minoria y tres a la Corte Suprema, ¿no cree Su Señoriaqueestoequivalepracticamente a dejar el asunto a los miembros del Tribunal Supremo? El Sr. ROXAS. Si y no.Creemosquesi el tribunal o la Commission estaconstituido en esa forma, tanto los miembros de la mayoriacomo los de la minoriaasicomo los miembros de la Corte Supremaconsideraran la cuestionsobre la base de susmeritos, sabiendoque el partidismo no essuficienteparadar el triunfo. El Sr. CONEJERO. ¿Cree Su Señoriaque en uncasocomoese, podriamoshacerquetanto los de la mayoriacomo los de la minoriaprescindieran del partidismo? El Sr. ROXAS. Creoquesi, porque el partidismo no les daria el triunfo.
- 13. xxx x xxx xx The amendment introduced by Delegates Labrador, Abordo and others seeking to restore the power to decide contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly to the National Assembly itself, was defeated by a vote of ninety-eight (98) against fifty-six (56). In the same session of December 4, 1934, Delegate Cruz (C.) sought to amend the draft by reducing the representation of the minority party and the Supreme Court in the Electoral Commission to two members each, so as to accord more representation to the majority party. The Convention rejected this amendment by a vote of seventy-six (76) against forty-six (46), thus maintaining the non-partisan character of the commission. As approved on January 31, 1935, the draft was made to read as follows: (6) All cases contesting the elections, returns and qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly shall be judged by an Electoral Commission, composed of three members elected by the party having the largest number of votes in the National Assembly, three elected by the members of the party having the second largest number of votes, and three justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, the Commission to be presided over by one of said justices. The Style Committee to which the draft was submitted revised it as follows: SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six Members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, and three by the party having the second largest number of votes therein. The senior Justice in the Commission shall be its chairman. The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly. When the foregoing draft was submitted for approval on February 8, 1935, the Style Committee, through President Recto, to effectuate the original intention of the Convention, agreed to insert the phrase "All contests relating to" between the phrase "judge of" and the words "the elections", which was accordingly accepted by the Convention. The transfer of the power of determining the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the legislature long lodged in the legislative body, to an independent, impartial and non-partisan tribunal, is by no means a mere experiment in the science of government. Cushing, in his Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (ninth edition, chapter VI, pages 57, 58), gives a vivid account of the "scandalously notorious" canvassing of votes by political parties in the disposition of contests by the House of Commons in the following passages which are partly quoted by the petitioner in his printed memorandum of March 14, 1936: 153. From the time when the commons established their right to be the exclusive judges of the elections, returns, and qualifications of their members, until the year 1770, two modes of proceeding prevailed, in the determination of controverted elections, and rights of membership. One of the standing committees appointed at the commencement of each session, was denominated the committee of privileges and elections, whose functions was to hear and investigate all questions of this description which might be referred to them, and to report their proceedings, with their opinion thereupon, to the house, from time to time. When an election petition was referred to this committee they heard the parties and their witnesses and other evidence, and made a report of all the evidence, together with their opinion thereupon, in the form of resolutions, which were considered and agreed or disagreed to by the house. The other mode of proceeding was by a hearing at the bar of the house itself. When this court was adopted, the case was heard and decided by the house, in substantially the same manner as by a committee. The committee of privileges and elections although a select committee. The committee of privileges and elections although a select committee was usually what is called an open one; that is to say, in order to constitute the committee, a quorum of the members named was required to be present, but all the members of the house were at liberty to attend the committee and vote if they pleased. 154. With the growth of political parties in parliament questions relating to the right of membership gradually assumed a political character; so that for many years previous to the year 1770, controverted elections had been tried and determined by the house of commons, as mere party questions, upon which the strength of contending
- 14. factions might betested. Thus, for Example, in 1741, Sir Robert Walpole, after repeated attacks upon his government, resigned his office in consequence of an adverse vote upon the Chippenham election. Mr. Hatsell remarks, of the trial of election cases, as conducted under this system, that "Every principle of decency and justice were notoriously and openly prostituted, from whence the younger part of the house were insensibly, but too successfully, induced to adopt the same licentious conduct in more serious matters, and in questions of higher importance to the public welfare." Mr. George Grenville, a distinguished member of the house of commons, undertook to propose a remedy for the evil, and, on the 7th of March, 1770, obtained the unanimous leave of the house to bring in a bill, "to regulate the trial of controverted elections, or returns of members to serve in parliament." In his speech to explain his plan, on the motion for leave, Mr. Grenville alluded to the existing practice in the following terms: "Instead of trusting to the merits of their respective causes, the principal dependence of both parties is their private interest among us; and it is scandalously notorious that we are as earnestly canvassed to attend in favor of the opposite sides, as if we were wholly self-elective, and not bound to act by the principles of justice, but by the discretionary impulse of our own inclinations; nay, it is well known, that in every contested election, many members of this house, who are ultimately to judge in a kind of judicial capacity between the competitors, enlist themselves as parties in the contention, and take upon themselves the partial management of the very business, upon which they should determine with the strictest impartiality." 155. It was to put an end to the practices thus described, that Mr. Grenville brought in a bill which met with the approbation of both houses, and received the royal assent on the 12th of April, 1770. This was the celebrated law since known by the name of the Grenville Act; of which Mr. Hatsell declares, that it "was one of the nobles works, for the honor of the house of commons, and the security of the constitution, that was ever devised by any minister or statesman." It is probable, that the magnitude of the evil, or the apparent success of the remedy, may have led many of the contemporaries of the measure to the information of a judgement, which was not acquiesced in by some of the leading statesmen of the day, and has not been entirely confirmed by subsequent experience. The bill was objected to by Lord North, Mr. De Grey, afterwards chief justice of the common pleas, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Dyson, who had been clerk of the house, and Mr. Charles James Fox, chiefly on the ground, that the introduction of the new system was an essential alteration of the constitution of parliament, and a total abrogation of one of the most important rights and jurisdictions of the house of commons. As early as 1868, the House of Commons in England solved the problem of insuring the non-partisan settlement of the controverted elections of its members by abdicating its prerogative to two judges of the King's Bench of the High Court of Justice selected from a rota in accordance with rules of court made for the purpose. Having proved successful, the practice has become imbedded in English jurisprudence (Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868 [31 & 32 Vict. c. 125] as amended by Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act. 1879 [42 & 43 Vict. c. 75], s. 2; Corrupt and Illegal Practices Preventions Act, 1883 [46 & 47 Vict. c. 51;, s. 70; Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1911 [1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 22]; Laws of England, vol. XII, p. 408, vol. XXI, p. 787). In the Dominion of Canada, election contests which were originally heard by the Committee of the House of Commons, are since 1922 tried in the courts. Likewise, in the Commonwealth of Australia, election contests which were originally determined by each house, are since 1922 tried in the High Court. In Hungary, the organic law provides that all protests against the election of members of the Upper House of the Diet are to be resolved by the Supreme Administrative Court (Law 22 of 1916, chap. 2, art. 37, par. 6). The Constitution of Poland of March 17, 1921 (art. 19) and the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig of May 13, 1922 (art. 10) vest the authority to decide contested elections to the Diet or National Assembly in the Supreme Court. For the purpose of deciding legislative contests, the Constitution of the German Reich of July 1, 1919 (art. 31), the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic of February 29, 1920 (art. 19) and the Constitution of the Grecian Republic of June 2, 1927 (art. 43), all provide for an Electoral Commission. The creation of an Electoral Commission whose membership is recruited both from the legislature and the judiciary is by no means unknown in the United States. In the presidential elections of 1876 there was a dispute as to the number of electoral votes received by each of the two opposing candidates. As the Constitution made no adequate provision for such a contingency, Congress passed a law on January 29, 1877 (United States Statutes at Large, vol. 19, chap. 37, pp. 227-229), creating a special Electoral Commission composed of five members elected by the Senate, five members elected by the House of Representatives, and five justices of the Supreme Court, the fifth justice to be selected by the four designated in the Act. The decision of the commission was to be binding unless rejected by the two houses voting separately. Although there is not much of a moral lesson to be derived from the experience of America in this regard, judging from the observations of Justice Field, who was a member of that body on the part of the Supreme Court (Countryman, the Supreme Court of the United States and its Appellate Power under the Constitution [Albany, 1913] — Relentless Partisanship of Electoral Commission, p. 25 et seq.), the experiment has at least abiding historical interest.
- 15. The members ofthe Constitutional Convention who fram ed our fundamental law were in their majority men mature in years and experience. To be sure, many of them were familiar with the history and political development of other countries of the world. When , therefore, they deemed it wise to create an Electoral Commission as a constitutional organ and invested it with the exclusive function of passing upon and determining the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly, they must have done so not only in the light of their own experience but also having in view the experience of other enlightened peoples of the world. The creation of the Electoral Commission was designed to remedy certain evils of which the framers of our Constitution were cognizant. Notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of some members of the Convention to its creation, the plan, as hereinabove stated, was approved by that body by a vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said now is that, upon the approval of the constitutional the creation of the Electoral Commission is the expression of the wisdom and "ultimate justice of the people". (Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.) From the deliberations of our Constitutional Convention it is evident that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all the powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its members, to an independent and impartial tribunal. It was not so much the knowledge and appreciation of contemporary constitutional precedents, however, as the long-felt need of determining legislative contests devoid of partisan considerations which prompted the people, acting through their delegates to the Convention, to provide for this body known as the Electoral Commission. With this end in view, a composite body in which both the majority and minority parties are equally represented to off-set partisan influence in its deliberations was created, and further endowed with judicial temper by including in its membership three justices of the Supreme Court. The Electoral Commission is a constitutional creation, invested with the necessary authority in the performance and execution of the limited and specific function assigned to it by the Constitution. Although it is not a power in our tripartite scheme of government, it is, to all intents and purposes, when acting within the limits of its authority, an independent organ. It is, to be sure, closer to the legislative department than to any other. The location of the provision (section 4) creating the Electoral Commission under Article VI entitled "Legislative Department" of our Constitution is very indicative. Its compositions is also significant in that it is constituted by a majority of members of the legislature. But it is a body separate from and independent of the legislature. The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the National Assembly. And this is as effective a restriction upon the legislative power as an express prohibition in the Constitution (Ex parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep., 1; State vs.Whisman, 36 S.D., 260; L.R.A., 1917B, 1). If we concede the power claimed in behalf of the National Assembly that said body may regulate the proceedings of the Electoral Commission and cut off the power of the commission to lay down the period within which protests should be filed, the grant of power to the commission would be ineffective. The Electoral Commission in such case would be invested with the power to determine contested cases involving the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly but subject at all times to the regulative power of the National Assembly. Not only would the purpose of the framers of our Constitution of totally transferring this authority from the legislative body be frustrated, but a dual authority would be created with the resultant inevitable clash of powers from time to time. A sad spectacle would then be presented of the Electoral Commission retaining the bare authority of taking cognizance of cases referred to, but in reality without the necessary means to render that authority effective whenever and whenever the National Assembly has chosen to act, a situation worse than that intended to be remedied by the framers of our Constitution. The power to regulate on the part of the National Assembly in procedural matters will inevitably lead to the ultimate control by the Assembly of the entire proceedings of the Electoral Commission, and, by indirection, to the entire abrogation of the constitutional grant. It is obvious that this result should not be permitted. We are not insensible to the impassioned argument or the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the importance and necessity of respecting the dignity and independence of the national Assembly as a coordinate department of the government and of according validity to its acts, to avoid what he characterized would be practically an unlimited power of the commission in the admission of protests against members of the National Assembly. But as we have pointed out hereinabove, the creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitaterei the power regulative in character to limit the time with which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule of construction that where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, eight ed., vol. I, pp. 138, 139). In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental
- 16. power to promulgatesuch rules necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. It is, indeed, possible that, as suggested by counsel for the petitioner, the Electoral Commission may abuse its regulative authority by admitting protests beyond any reasonable time, to the disturbance of the tranquillity and peace of mind of the members of the National Assembly. But the possibility of abuse is not argument against the concession of the power as there is no power that is not susceptible of abuse. In the second place, if any mistake has been committed in the creation of an Electoral Commission and in investing it with ex clusive jurisdiction in all cases relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, the remedy is political, not judicial, and must be sought through the ordinary processes of democracy. All the possible abuses of the government are not intended to be corrected by the judiciary. We believe, however, that the people in creating the Electoral Commission reposed as much confidence in this body in the exclusive determination of the specified cases assigned to it, as they have given to the Supreme Court in the proper cases entrusted to it for decision. All the agencies of the government were designed by the Constitution to achieve specific purposes, and each constitutional organ working within its own particular sphere of discretionary action must be deemed to be animated with the same zeal and honesty in accomplishing the great ends for which they were created by the sovereign will. That the actuations of these constitutional agencies might leave much to be desired in give n instances, is inherent in the perfection of human institutions. In the third place, from the fact that the Electoral Commission may not be interfered with in the exercise of its legitimate power, it does not follow that its acts, however illegal or unconstitutional, may not be challenge in appropriate cases over which the courts may exercise jurisdiction. But independently of the legal and constitutional aspects of the present case, there are considerations of equitable character that should not be overlooked in the appreciation of the intrinsic merits of the controversy. The Commonwealth Government was inaugurated on November 15, 1935, on which date the Constitution, except as to the provisions mentioned in section 6 of Article XV thereof, went into effect. The new National Assembly convened on November 25th of that year, and the resolution confirming the election of the petitioner, Jose A. Angara was approved by that body on December 3, 1935. The protest by the herein respondent Pedro Ynsua against the election of the petitioner was filed on December 9 of the same year. The pleadings do not show when the Electoral Commission was formally organized but it does appear that on December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission met for the first time and approved a resolution fixing said date as the last day for the filing of election protest. When, therefore, the National Assembly passed its resolution of December 3, 1935, confirming the election of the petitioner to the National Assembly, the Electoral Commission had not yet met; neither does it appear that said body had actually been organized. As a mater of fact, according to certified copies of official records on file in the archives division of the National Assembly attached to the record of this case upon the petition of the petitioner, the three justices of the Supreme Court the six members of the National Assembly constituting the Electoral Commission were respectively designated only on December 4 and 6, 1935. If Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly confirming non-protested elections of members of the National Assembly had the effect of limiting or tolling the time for the presentation of protests, the result would be that the National Assembly — on the hypothesis that it still retained the incidental power of regulation in such cases — had already barred the presentation of protests before the Electoral Commission had had time to organize itself and deliberate on the mode and method to be followed in a matter entrusted to its exclusive jurisdiction by the Constitution. This result was not and could not have been contemplated, and should be avoided. From another angle, Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly confirming the election of members against whom no protests had been filed at the time of its passage on December 3, 1935, can not be construed as a limitation upon the time for the initiation of election contests. While there might have been good reason for the legislative practice of confirmation of the election of members of the legislature at the time when the power to decide election contests was still lodged in the legislature, confirmation alone by the legislature cannot be construed as depriving the Electoral Commission of the authority incidental to its constitutional power to be "the sole judge of all contest relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly", to fix the time for the filing of said election protests. Confirmation by the National Assembly of the returns of its members against whose election no protests have been filed is, to all legal purposes, unnecessary. As contended by the Electoral Commission in its resolution of January 23, 1936, overruling the motion of the herein petitioner to dismiss the protest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua, confirmation of the election of any member is not required by the Constitution before he can discharge his duties as such member. As a matter of fact, certification by the proper provincial board of canvassers is sufficient to entitle a member-elect to a seat in the national Assembly and to render him eligible to any office in said body (No. 1, par. 1, Rules of the National Assembly, adopted December 6, 1935).
- 17. Under the practiceprevailing both in the English House of Commons and in the Congress of the United States, confirmation is neither necessary in order to entitle a member-elect to take his seat. The return of the proper election officers is sufficient, and the member-elect presenting such return begins to enjoy the privileges of a member from the time that he takes his oath of office (Laws of England, vol. 12, pp. 331. 332; vol. 21, pp. 694, 695; U. S. C. A., Title 2, secs. 21, 25, 26). Confirmation is in order only in cases of contested elections where the decision is adverse to the claims of the protestant. In England, the judges' decision or report in controverted elections is certified to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the House, upon being informed of such certificate or report by the Speaker, is required to enter the same upon the Journals, and to give such directions for confirming or altering the return, or for the issue of a writ for a new election, or for carrying into execution the determination as circumstances may require (31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, sec. 13). In the United States, it is believed, the order or decision of the particular house itself is generally regarded as sufficient, without any actual alternation or amendment of the return (Cushing, Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th ed., sec. 166). Under the practice prevailing when the Jones Law was still in force, each house of the Philippine Legislature fixed the time when protests against the election of any of its members should be filed. This was expressly authorized by section 18 of the Jones Law making each house the sole judge of the election, return and qualifications of its members, as well as by a law (sec. 478, Act No. 3387) empowering each house to respectively prescribe by resolution the time and manner of filing contest in the election of member of said bodies. As a matter of formality, after the time fixed by its rules for the filing of protests had already expired, each house passed a resolution confirming or approving the returns of such members against whose election no protests had been filed within the prescribed time. This was interpreted as cutting off the filing of further protests against the election of those members not theretofore contested (Amistad vs. Claravall [Isabela], Second Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, p. 89; Urguellovs. Rama [Third District, Cebu], Sixth Philippine Legislature; Fetalverovs.Festin [Romblon], Sixth Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, pp. 637-640; Kintanarvs.Aldanese [Fourth District, Cebu], Sixth Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, pp. 1121, 1122; Aguilar vs. Corpus [Masbate], Eighth Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, vol. III, No. 56, pp. 892, 893). The Constitution has repealed section 18 of the Jones Law. Act No. 3387, section 478, must be deemed to have been impliedly abrogated also, for the reason that with the power to determine all contest relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is inseparably linked the authority to prescribe regulations for the exercise of that po wer. There was thus no law nor constitutional provisions which authorized the National Assembly to fix, as it is alleged to have fixed on December 3, 1935, the time for the filing of contests against the election of its members. And what the National Assembly could not do directly, it could not do by indirection through the medium of confirmation. Summarizing, we conclude: (a) That the government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of separation of power into the legislative, the executive and the judicial. (b) That the system of checks and balances and the overlapping of functions and duties often makes difficult the delimitation of the powers granted. (c) That in cases of conflict between the several departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries. (d) That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority. (e) That the Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any of the other two departments of the governments. (f ) That the Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly. (g) That under the organic law prevailing before the present Constitution went into effect, each house of the legislature was respectively the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of their elective members.
- 18. (h) That thepresent Constitution has transferred all the powers previously exercised by the legislature with respect to contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of its members, to the Electoral Commission. (i) That such transfer of power from the legislature to the Electoral Commission was full, clear and complete, and carried with it ex necesitaterei the implied power inter alia to prescribe the rules and regulations as to the time and manner of filing protests. ( j) That the avowed purpose in creating the Electoral Commission was to have an independent constitutional organ pass upon all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, devoid of partisan influence or consideration, which object would be frustrated if the National Assembly were to retain the power to prescribe rules and regulations regarding the manner of conducting said contests. (k) That section 4 of article VI of the Constitution repealed not only section 18 of the Jones Law making each house of the Philippine Legislature respectively the sole judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its elective members, but also section 478 of Act No. 3387 empowering each house to prescribe by resolution the time and manner of filing contests against the election of its members, the time and manner of notifying the adverse party, and bond or bonds, to be required, if any, and to fix the costs and expenses of contest. (l) That confirmation by the National Assembly of the election is contested or not, is not essential before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy the privileges of a member of the National Assembly. (m) That confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of any member against whom no protest had been filed prior to said confirmation, does not and cannot deprive the Electoral Commission of its incidental power to prescribe the time within which protests against the election of any member of the National Assembly should be filed. We hold, therefore, that the Electoral Commission was acting within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua against the election of the herein petitioner Jose A. Angara, and that the resolution of the National Assembly of December 3, 1935 can not in any manner toll the time for filing protests against the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral Commission might prescribe. In view of the conclusion reached by us relative to the character of the Electoral Commission as a constitutional creation and as to the scope and extent of its authority under the facts of the present controversy, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether the Electoral Commission is an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person within the purview of sections 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition for a writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission is hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered. Avanceña, C. J., Diaz, Concepcion, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-38025 August 20, 1979 DANTE O. CASIBANG, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE NARCISO A. AQUINO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIV, and REMEGIO P. YU, respondents. Nicanor& Bautista and Agaton D. Yaranon for petitioner. Bince, Sevilleja, Agsalud& Associates for respondents. MAKASIAR, J.: Respondent Remigio P. Yu was proclaimed on November 9, 1971 as the elected Mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan in
- 19. the 1971 localelections, by a plurality of 501 votes over his only rival, herein petitioner, who seasonably filed on November 24, 1971 a protest against the election of the former with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, on the grounds of (1) anomalies and irregularities in the appreciation, counting and consideration of votes in specified electoral precincts; (2) terrorism; (3) rampant vote buying; (4) open voting or balloting; and (5) excessive campaign expenditures and other violations of the 1971 Election Code. Respondent Yu filed on November 29, 1971 his answer and counter-protest which petitioner answered on December 10, 1971. However, respondent Yu withdrew his counter-protest after waiving the opening and revision of the ballot boxes specified therein. Proceedings therein continued with respect to the election protest of petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIV, presided by respondent Judge, who initially took cognizance of the same as it is unquestionably a justiciable controversy. In the meantime or on September 21, 1972, the incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. 1081, placing the entire country under Martial Law; and two months thereafter, more or less, or specifically on November 29, 1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention passed and approved a Constitution to supplant the 1935 Constitution; and the same was thereafter overwhelmingly ratified by the sovereign people of the Republic of the Philippines on January 17, 1973; and on March 31, 1973, this Court declared that "there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect" (Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 [1973]). Thereafter or on October 10, 1973, at which time petitioner had already completed presenting his evidence and in fact had rested his case, respondent Yu moved to dismiss the election protest of petitioner on the ground that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the same in view of the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution by reason of which — principally) Section 9 of Article XVII [Transitory Provisions] and Section 2 of Article XI — a political question has intervened in the case. Respondent Yu contended that "... the provisions in the 1935 Constitution relative to all local governments have been superseded by the 1973 Constitution. Therefore, all local government should adhere to our parliamentary form of government. This is clear in the New Constitution under its Article XI." He further submitted that local elective officials (including mayors) have no more four-year term of office. They are only in office at the pleasure of the appointing power embodied in the New Constitution, and under Section 9 of Article XVII. Petitioner vigorously opposed the motion to dismiss, and, relying mainly on Sections 7 and 8 of Article XVII (Transitory Provisions) of the New Constitution and G.O. No. 3, contended that the New Constitution did not divest the Court of First Instance of its jurisdiction to hear and decide election protests pending before them at the time of its ratification and effectivity;that the ratification of the New Constitution and its effectivity did not automatically abolish the office and position of municipal mayor nor has it automatically cut short the tenure of the office, so as to render the issue as to who is the lawfully elected candidate to said office or position moot and academic; that election protests involve public interest such that the same must be heard until terminated and may not be dismissed on mere speculation that the office involved may have been abolished, modi fied or reorganized; and that the motion to dismiss was filed manifestly for delay. Respondent Yu replied pointing out, among others, that petitioner failed to refute the issue of political question; and reiterated his stand, expanding his arguments on the political question, thus: It is an undeniable fact that this case has its source from the 1971 elections for municipal mayoralty. Unsatisfied with the counting of votes held by the Board of Canvassers, the herein protestant filed this present case. And before the termination of the same and pending trial, the Filipino people in the exercise of their free will and sovereign capacity approved a NEW CONSTITUTION, thus a NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT-PARLIAMENTARY IN FORM was enforced. We find this provision under Article XI of the New Constitution, which provides: SEC. 2. The National Assembly shall enact a local government code which may not thereafter be amended except by a majority vote of all its members, defining a more responsive and accountable local government structure with an effective system of recall, allocating among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and providing for the qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers, functions, and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. However, any change in the existing form of local government shall not take effect until ratified by a majority of the votes cast
- 20. in a plebiscitecalled for the purpose. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the protestant to the effect that the New Constitution "shows that the office of the Municipal Mayor has not been abolished ... ," is not ACCURATE. Otherwise, the provisions of Section 9 of Article XVII, is meaningless. All officials and employees in the existing Government of the Republic shall continue in office until otherwise provided by law or decreed by the incumbent President of the Philippines, ... In the above-quoted provision is the protection of the officials and employees working in our government, otherwise, by the force of the New Constitution they are all out of the government offices. In fact, in the case above-cited (Javellana) we are all performing our duties in accordance with the New Constitution. Therefore, election cases of the 1935 Constitution being interwoven in the political complexion of our new Constitution should be dismissed because only those incumbent official and employees existing in the new government are protected by the transitional provisions of the New Fundamental Law of the Land. The protestant, we respectfully submit, is not covered by the provisions of Section 9 Article XVII of the Constitution. And in case he will win in this present case he has no right to hold the position of mayor of the town of Rosales, Pangasinan, because he was not then an official of the government at the time the New Constitution was approved by the Filipino People. His right if proclaimed a winner is derived from the 1935 Constitution which is changed by the Filipino people. On December 18, 1973, the trial court, presided by respondent Judge, sustained the political question theory of respondent Yu and ordered the dismissal of the electoral protest. Thus: There is no dispute that the Filipino people have accepted and submitted to a new Constitution to replace the 1935 Constitution, and that we are now living under its aegis and protection. ... xxxxxxxxx Under Section 9, Article XVII, of the new Constitution, above-quoted, only those officials and employees of the existing Government of the Republic of the Philippines like the protestee herein, are given protection and are authorized to continue in office at the pleasure of the incumbent President of the Philippines, while under Section 2 of Article XI of the new Constitution, also above-quoted, the intention of completely revamp the whole local government structure, providing for different qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers, functions, and duties, is very clear. These present questions of policy, the necessity and expediency of which are outside the range of judicial review. With respect to the fate of incumbent oficials and employees in the existing Government of the Republic of the Philippines, as well as to the qualifications, election and removal, term of office, salaries, and powers of all local officials under the parliamentary form of government — these have been entrusted or delegated by the sovereign people or has reserved it to be settled by the incumbent Chief Executive or by the National Assembly with full discretionary authority therefor. As if to supplement these delegated powers, the people have also decreed in a referendum the suspension of all elections. Thus, in the United States, questions relating to what persons or organizations constituted the lawful government of a state of the Union (Luther vs. Borden, 7 How. 1, 12, L. Ed 58), and those relating to the political status of a state (Highland Farms Dairy vs. Agnew, 57 S. et 549, 300 U.S. 608, 81 L.ed 835), have been held to be political and for the judiciary to determine. To the mind of the Court, therefore, the ratification and effectivity of the new Constitution has tainted this case with a political complexion above and beyond the power of judicial review. As fittingly commented by Mr. Justice Antonio in a separate opinion in the Javellana, et al. cases, 69 0. G. No. 36, September 3, 1973, p. 8008: The essentially political nature of the question is at once manifest by understanding that in the final analysis, what is assailed is not merely the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 of the President, which is merely declaratory of the fact of the approval or ratification, but the legitimacy of the government. It is addressed more to the f rame-work and political character of this government which now functions under the new Charter. It seeks to nullify a Constitution that is already effective. In other words, where a complete change in the fundamental law has been effected through political action, the Court whose existence is affected by such a change is, in the words of Mr. Meville Fuller Weston "precluded from passing upon the fact of change by a logical difficulty which is not to be surmounted as the change relates to the existence of a prior point in the Court's "chain of title" to its authority and "does not
- 21. relate merely toa question of the horizontal distribution of powers." It involves a matter which 'the sovereign has entrusted to the so-called political departments or has reserved to be settled by its own extra-governmental action." The present Government functions under the new Constitution which has become effective through political action. Judicial power presupposes an established government and an effective constitution. If it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affirms the existence and authority of the Government under which it is exercising judicial power. The Court is not unaware of provisions of the new Constitution, particularly Sections 7 and 8, Article XVII (Transitory Provisions) decreeing that all existing laws not inconsistent with the new Constitution shall remain operative until amended, modified, or repealed by the National Assembly, and that all courts existing at the time of the ratification of the said new Constitution shall continue and exercise their jurisdiction until otherwise provided by law in accordance with the new Constitution, and all cases pending in said courts shall be heard, tried and determined under the laws then in force. Again, to the mind of the Court, these refer to matters raised in the enforcement of existing laws or in the invocation of a court's jurisdiction which have not been "entrusted to the so- called political department or has reserved to be settled by its own extra governmental action. Hence, this petition. We reverse. The thrust of the aforesaid political question theory of respondent Yu is that the 1973 Constitution, through Section 9 of Article XVII thereof, protected only those incumbents, like him, at the time of its ratification and effectivity and are the only ones authorized to continue in office and their term of office as extended now depends on the pleasure of, as the same has been entrusted or committed to, the incumbent President of the Philippines or the Legislative Department; and that Section 2 of Article XI thereof entrusted to the National Assembly the revamp of the entire local government structure by the enactment of a local government code, thus presenting a question of policy, the necessity and expediency of which are outside the range of judicial review. In short, for the respondent Judge to still continue assuming jurisdiction over the pending election protest of petitioner is for him to take cognizance of a question or policy "in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislative or Executive branch of the government." I There is an imperative need to re-state pronouncements of this Court on the new Constitution which are decisive in the resolution of the political question theory of respondent Yu. WE ruled: 1. That Section 9 of Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution did not render moot and academic pending election protest cases (Santos vs. Castañeda, 65 SCRA 114 [1975]; Euipilag vs. Araula, 60 SCRA 211 [1974]; Nunez vs. Averia, 57 SCRA 726 [1974]; Parades vs. Abad, L-36927, Sunga vs. Mosueda, L-37715, Valley vs. Caro, L-38331, 56 SCRA 522, [1974]). 2. That "the constitutional grant of privilege to continue in office, made by the new Constitution for the benefit of persons who were incumbent officials or employees of the Government when the new Constitution took effect, cannot be fairly construed as indiscriminately encompassing every person who at the time happened to be performing the duties of an elective office, albeit under protest or contest" and that "subject to the constraints specifically mentioned in Section 9, Article XVII of the Transitory Provisions, it neither was, nor could have been the intention of the framers of our new fundamental law to disregard and shunt aside the statutory right of a condidate for elective position who, within the time-frame prescribed in the Election Code of 1971, commenced proceedings beamed mainly at the proper determination in a judicial forum of a proclaimed candidate-elect's right to the contested office."' (Santos vs. Castañeda, supra); and We rationalized that "the Constitutional Convention could not have intended, as in fact it .did not intend, to shielf or protect those who had been unduly elected. To hold that the right of the herein private respondents to the respective offices which they are now holding, may no longer be subject to question, would be tantamount to giving a stamp of approval to what could have been an election victory characterized by fraud, threats, intimidation, vote buying, or other forms of irregularities prohibited by the Election Code to preserve inviolate the sanctity of the ballot." (Parades, Sunga and Valley cases, supra). 3. That "the right of the private respondents (protestees) to continue in office indefinitely arose not only by virtue of
- 22. Section 9 ofArticle XVII of the New Constitution but principally from their having been proclaimed elected to their respective positions as a result of the November 8, 1971 elections. Therefore, if in fact and in law, t hey were not duly elected to their respective positions and consequently, have no right to hold the same, perform their functions, enjoy their privileges and emoluments, then certainly, they should not be allowed to enjoy the indefinite term of office given to them by said constitutional provision" (Parades, Sunga and Valley cases, supra). 4. That "until a subsequent law or presidential decree provides otherwise, the right of respondent (protestee) to continue as mayor rests on the legality of his election which has been protested by herein petitioner. Should the court decide adversely against him the electoral protest, respondent (protestee) would cease to be mayor even before a law or presidential decree terminates his tenure of office pursuant to said Section 9 of Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution" (Euipilag, supra). 5. That "there is a difference between the 'term' of office and the 'right' to hold an office. A 'term' of office is the period during winch an elected officer or appointee is entitled to hold office, perform its functions and enjoy its privileges and emoluments. A 'right' to hold a public office is the just and legal claim to hold and enjoy the powers and responsibilities of the office. In other words, the 'term' refers to the period, duration of length of time during which the occupant of an office is .entitled to stay therein whether such period be definite or indefinite. Hence, although Section 9, Article XVII of the New Constitution made the term of the petitioners indefinite, it did not foreclose any challenge by the herein petitioners, in an election protest, of the 'right' of the private respondents to continue holding their respective office. What has been directly affected by said constitutional provision is the 'term' to the office, although the 'right' of the incumbent to an office which he is legally holding is co-extensive with the 'term' thereof," and that "it is erroneous to conclude that under Section 9, Article XVII of the New Constitution, the term of office of the private respondents expired, and that they are now holding their respective offices under a new term. We are of the opinion that they hold their respective offices still under the term to which they have been elected, although the same is now indefinite" (Parades, Sunga and Valley cases, supra). 6. That the New Constitution recognized the continuing jurisdiction of courts of first instance to hear, try and decide election protests: "Section 7 of Article XVII of the New Constitution provides that 'all existing laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, modified or repealed by the National Assembly. 'And there has been no amendment, modification or repeal of Section 220 of the Election Code of 1971 which gave the herein petitioners the right to file an election contest against those proclaimed elected," and "according to Section 8, Article XVII of the New Constitution 'all courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue and exercise their jurisdiction until otherwise provided by law in accordance with this Constitution, and all cases pending in said courts shall be heard, tried and determined under the laws then in force.' Consequently, the Courts of First Instance presided over by the respondent-Judges should continue and exercise their jurisdiction to hear, try and decide the election protests filed by herein petitioners" (Santos, Euipilag, Nunez, Parades, Sunga and Valley cases, supra). While under the New Constitution the Commission on Elections is now the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of members of the National Assembly as well as elective provincial and city officials (par. 2 of Sec. 2, Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution), such power does not extend to electoral contests concerning municipal elective positions. 7. That General Order No. 3, issued by the President of the Philippines merely reiterated his powers under Section 9 of Article XVII of the New Constitution. The President did not intend thereby to modify the aforesaid constitutional provision (Euipilag, supra). General Order No. 3, as amended by General Order No. 3-A, does not expressly include electoral contests of municipal elective positions as among those removed from the jurisdiction of the courts; for said General Order, after affirming the jurisdiction of the Judiciary to decide in accordance with the existing laws on criminal and civil cases, simply removes from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court certain crimes specified therein as well as the validity, legality or constitutionality of any decree, order or acts issued by the President or his duly designated representative or by public servants pursuant to his decrees and orders issued under Proclamation No. 1081. 8. That General Order No. 3 may not be invoked by the courts to avoid exercise of their jurisdiction because to do co "is nothing short of unwarranted abdication of judicial', authority, which no judge duly imbued with the implications of the paramount principle of independence of the judiciary should ever think of doing. It is unfortunate indeed that respondent Judge is apparently unaware that it is a matter of highly significant historical fact that this Court has always deemed General Order No. 3 including its amendment by General Order No. 3-A as practically
- 23. inoperative even inthe light of Proclamation No. 1081 of September 21, 1972 and Proclamation No. 1104 of January 17, 1973, placing the whole Philippines under martial law. While the members of the Court are not agreed on whether or not particular instances of attack against the validity of certain Presidential decrees raise political questions which the Judiciary would not interfere with, there is unanimity among Us in the view that it is for the Court rather than the Executive to determine whether or not We may take cognizance of any given case involving the validity of acts of the Executive Department purportedly under the authority of the martial law proclamations" (Lina vs. Purisima, 3 PHILAJUR 605, 610-611, 82 SCRA 344 [1978]). II 1. In the light of the foregoing pronouncements, We hold that the electoral protest case herein involved has remained a justiciable controversy. No political question has ever been interwoven into this case. Nor is there any act of the incumbent President or the Legislative Department to be indirectly reviewed or interfered with if the respondent Judge decides the election protest. The term "political question" connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which under the Constitution, are to be decidedby the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure" (Tañada vs. Cuenco, L-1052, Feb. 28, 1957). A broader definition was advanced by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan in Baker vs. Carr (369 U.S. 186 [1962]): "Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of the government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question" (p. 217). And Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, then an Associate Justice, of this Court fixed the limits of the term, thus: "The term has been made applicable to controversies clearly non -judicial and therefore beyond its jurisdiction or to an issue involved in a case appropriately subject to its cognizance, as to which there has been a prior legislative or executive determination to which deference must be paid (Cf. Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192 [1946]; Lopez vs. Roxas, L-25716, July 28, 1966, 17 SCRA 756; Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, L-28196, Nov. 9, 1967, 21 SCRA 774). It 'has likewise been employed loosely to characterize a suit where the party proceeded against is the President or Congress, or any branch thereof (Cf. Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil. 62 [1937]; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192 [1946]). If to be delimited with accuracy; 'political questions' should refer to such as would under the Constitution be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority is vested either in the President or Congress. It is thus beyond the competence of the judiciary to pass upon. ..." (Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448, 504-505 [1971]). 2. The only issue in the electoral protest case dismissed by respondent Judge on the ground of political question is who between protestant — herein petitioner — and protestee — herein respondent Yu — was the duly elected mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan, and legally entitled to enjoy the rights, privileges and emoluments appurtenant thereto and to discharge the functions, duties and obli gations of the position. If the protestee's election is upheld by the respondent Judge, then he continues in office; otherwise, it is the protestant, herein petitioner. That is the only consequence of a resolution of the issue therein involved — a purely justiciable question or controversy as it implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or ommissionviolative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right (Tan vs. Republic, 107 Phil. 632-633 [1960]). Before and after the ratification and effectivity of the New Constitution, the nature of the aforesaid issue as well as the consequences of its resolution by the Court, remains the same as above-stated. 3. Any judgment to be made on that issue will not in any way collide or interfere with the mandate of Section 9 of Article XVII of the New Constitution, as it will merely resolve who as between protestant and protestee is the duly elected mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan; hence, entitled to enjoy the extended term as mandated by said provision of the New Constitution. As construed by this Court, the elective officials referred to in Section 9 of Article XVII are limited to those duly elected as the right to said extended term was not personal to whosoever was incumbent at the time of the ratification and effectivity of the New Constitution. Nor would such judgment preempt, collide or interfere with the power or discretion entrusted by the New Constitution to the incumbent President or the Legislative Department, with respect to the extended term of the duly elected incumbents; because whoever between protestant and protestee is declared the duly elected mayor will be subject always to whatever action the President or the Legislative Department will take pursuant thereto.
- 24. 4. Neither doesSection 2 of Article XI stigmatize the issue in that electoral protest case with a political color. For simply, that section allocated unto the National Assembly the power to enact a local government code "which may not thereafter be amended except by a majority of all its Members, defining a more responsive and accountable local government allocating among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and providing for their qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers, functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units" but "... any change in the existing form of local government shall not take effect until ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose." It is apparent at once that such power committed by the New Constitution to the National Assembly will not be usurped or preempted by whatever ruling or judgment the respondent Judge will render in the electoral protest case. Whoever will prevail in that contest will enjoy the indefinite term of the disputed office of mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan in the existing set-up of local government in this country; subject always to whatever change or modification the National Assembly will introduce when it will enact the local government code. III The construction made by respondent Judge of Sections 7 and 8 of Article XVII of the New Constitution "... that these refer to matters raised in the enforcement of existing laws or in the invocation of a court's jurisdiction which have not been 'entrusted to the so-called political department or reserved to be settled by its own extra- governmental action,"' strained as it is, cannot be sustained in view of the result herein reached on the issue of political question as well as Our previous pronouncements as above restated on the same Sections 7 and 8 of the New Constitution. WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE RESPONDENT COURT IS DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL AND DETERMINATION OF THE ELECTION PROTEST BEFORE IT ON THE MERITS. THIS DECISION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY UPON PROMULGATION HEREOF. NO COSTS. Teehankee (Chairman), Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ,, concur. G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957 LORENZO M. TAÑADA and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL, petitioners, vs. MARIANO JESUS CUENCO, FRANCISCO A. DELGADO, ALFREDO CRUZ, CATALINA CAYETANO, MANUEL SERAPIO, PLACIDO REYES, and FERNANDO HIPOLITO in his capacity as cashier and disbursing officer, respondents. Tañada, Teehankee and Macapagal for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Troadio T. Quiazon, Jr. for respondents. CONCEPCION, J.: Petitioner Lorenzo M. Tañada is a member of the Senate of the Philippines, and President of the Citizens Party, whereas petitioner DiosdadoMacapagal, a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, was one of the official candidates of the Liberal Party for the Senate, at the General elections held in November, 1955, in which Pacita Madrigal Warns, Lorenzo Sumulong, QuintinParedes, Francisco Rodrigo, Pedro Sabido, Claro M. Recto, DomocaoAlonto and Decoroso Rosales, were proclaimed elected. Subsequently, the elections of this Senators-elect-who eventually assumed their respective seats in the Senate-was contested by petitioner Macapagal, together with CamiloOsias, GeronimaPecson, Macario Peralta, Enrique Magalona, PioPedr osa and William Chiongbian-who had, also, run for the Senate, in said election-in Senate Electoral Case No. 4, now pending before the Senate Electoral Tribunal. . The Senate, in its session of February 22, 1956, upon nomination of Senator CiprianoPrimicias , on behalf of the Nacionalista Party, chose Senators Jose P. Laurel, Fernando Lopez and CiprianoPrimicias, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Upon nomination of petitioner Senator Tañada, on behalf of the Citizens Party, said petitioner was next chosen by the Senate as member of said Tribunal. Then, upon nomination of Senator Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules of the Senate, and over the objections of Senators Tañada and Sumulong, the Senate choose respondents Senators Mariano J. Cuenco and Francisco A. Delgado as members of the same Electoral Tribunal. Subsequently, the Chairman of the latter appointed: (1) Alfredo Cruz and Catalina Cayetano, as technical assistant and private secretary, respectively, to Senator Cuenco, as supposed member of the Senate
- 25. Electoral Tribunal, uponhis recommendation of said respondent; and (2) Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes, as technical assistant and private secretary, respectively to Senator Delgado, as supposed member of said Electoral Tribunal, and upon his recommendation. Soon, thereafter, Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada and Congressman DiosdadoMacapagal instituted the case at bar against Senators Cuenco and Delgado, and said Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes, as well as Fernando Hipolito, in his capacity as Cashier and Disbursing Officer of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Petitioners allege that on February 22, 1956, as well as at present, the Senate consists of 23 Senators who belong to the Nacionalista Party, and one (1) Senator-namely, petitioner, Lorenzo M. Tañada-belonging to the Citizens Party; that the Committee on Rules for the Senate, in nominating Senators Cuenco and Delgado, and the Senate, in choosing these respondents, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, h ad "acted absolutely without power or color of authority and in clear violation ..of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution"; that "in assuming membership in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, by taking the corresponding oath of office therefor", said respondents had "acted absolutely without color of appointment or authority and are unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution, usurping, intruding into and exercising the powers of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal"; that, consequently, the appointments of respondents, Cruz, Cayetano, Serapio and Reyes, as technical assistants and private secretaries to Senators Cuenco and Delgado-who caused said appointments to be made-as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, are unlawful and void; and that Senators Cuenco and Delgado "are threatening and are about to take cognizance of Electoral Case No. 4 of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, as alleged members thereof, in nullification of the rights of petitioner Lorenzo M. Tañada, both as a Senator belonging t o the Citizens Party and as representative of the Citizens Party in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and in deprivation of the constitutional rights of petitioner DiosdadoMacapagal and his co-protestants to have their election protest tried and decided-by an Electoral Tribunal composed of not more than three (3) senators chosen by the Senate upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate and not more than the (3) Senators upon nomination of the Party having the second largest number of votes therein, together, three (3) Justice of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, instead of by an Electoral Tribunal packed with five members belonging to the Nacionalista Party, which is the rival party of the Liberal Party, to which the Petitioner DiosdadoMacapagal and his co-protestants in Electoral Case No. 4 belong, the said five (5) Nacionalista Senators having been nominated and chosen in the manner alleged.. hereinabove.". Petitioners pray that:. "1. Upon petitioners' filing of bond in such amount as may be determined by this Honorable Court, a writ of preliminary injunction be immediately issued directed to respondents Mariano J. Cuenco, Francisco A. Delgado, Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes, restraining them from continuing to usurp, intrude into and/ or hold or exercise the said public offices respectively being occupied by them in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and to respondent Fernando Hipolito restraining him from paying the salaries of respondent Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes, pending this action. "2. After hearing, judgment be rendered ousting respondent Mariano J. Cuenco Francisco A. Delgado, Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes from the aforementioned public offices in the Senate Electoral Tribunal and that they be altogether excluded therefrom and making the Preliminary injunction permanent, with costs against the respondents.". Respondents have admitted the main allegations of fact in the petition, except insofar as it questions the legality, and validity of the election of respondents Senators Cuenco and Delgado, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, and of the appointment of respondent Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes as technical assistants and private secretaries to said respondents Senators. Respondents, likewise, allege, by way of special and affirmative defenses, that: (a) this Court is without power, authority of jurisdiction to direct or control the action of the Senate in choosing the members of the Electoral Tribunal; and (b) that the petition states no cause of action, because "petitioner Tañada has exhausted his right to nominate after he nominated himself and refused to nominate two (2) more Senators", because said petitioner is in estoppel, and because the present action is not the proper remedy. . I. Respondents assail our jurisdiction to entertain the petition, upon the ground that the power to choose six (6) Senators as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal has been expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the Senate, despite the fact that the draft submitted to the constitutional convention gave to the respective political parties the right to elect their respective representatives in the Electoral Commission provided for in the original Constitution of the Philippines, and that the only remedy available to petitioners herein "is not in the judicial forum",
- 26. but "to bringthe matter to the bar of public opinion.". We cannot agree with the conclusion drawn by respondents from the foregoing facts. To begin with, unlike the cases of Alejandrino vs. Quezon (46 Phil., 83) and Vera vs. Avelino (77 Phil., 192)-relied upon by the respondents this is not an action against the Senate, and it does not seek to compel the latter, either directly or indirectly, to allow the petitioners to perform their duties as members of said House. Although the Constitution provides that the Senate shall choose six (6) Senators to be members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the latter is part neither of Congress nor of the Senate. (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil., 139, Suanes vs. Chief Accountant, 81 Phil., 818; 46 Off. Gaz., 462.). Secondly, although the Senate has, under the Constitution, the exclusive power to choose the Senators who shall form part of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the fundamental law has prescribed the manner in which the authority shall be exercised. As the author of a very enlightening study on judicial self-limitation has aptly put it:. "The courts are called upon to say, on the one hand, by whom certain powers shall be exercised, and on the other hand, to determine whether the powers possessed have been validly exercised. In performing the latter function, they do not encroach upon the powers of a coordinate branch of the, government, since the determination of the validity of an act is not the same, thing as the performance of the act. In the one case we are seeking to ascertain upon whom devolves the duty of the particular service. In the other case we are merely seeking to determine whether the Constitution has been violated by anything done or attented by either an executive official or the legislative." (Judicial Self-Limitation by Finkelstein, pp. 221, 224, 244, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 39; emphasis supplied,). The case of Suanes vs. Chief Accountant (supra) cited by respondent refutes their own pretense. This Court exercised its jurisdiction over said case and decided the same on the merits thereof, despite the fact that it involved an inquiry into the powers of the Senate and its President over the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the personnel thereof. . Again, under the Constitution, "the legislative power" is vested exclusively in the Congress of the Philippines. Yet, this does not detract from the power of the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress 1 And, since judicial power includes the authority to inquire into the legality of statutes enacted by the two Houses of Congress, and approved by the Executive, there can be no reason why the validity of an act of one of said Houses, like that of any other branch of the Government, may not be determined in the proper actions. Thus, in the exercise of the so-called "judicial supremacy", this Court declared that a resolution of the defunct National Assembly could not bar the exercise of the powers of the former Electoral Commission under the original Constitution. 2 (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, supra), and annulled certain acts of the Executive 3 as incompatible with the fundamental law. In fact, whenever the conflicting claims of the parties to a litigation cannot properly be settled without inquiring into the validity of an act of Congress or of either House thereof, the courts have, not only jurisdiction to pass upon said issue, but, also, the duty to do so, which cannot be evaded without violating the fundamental law and paving the way to its eventual destruction. 4. Neither are the cases of Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (78 Phil., 1) and Cabili vs. Francisco (88 Phil., 654), likewise, invoked by respondents, in point. In the Mabanag case, it was held that the courts could not review the finding of the Senate to the effect that the members thereof who had been suspended by said House sh ould not be considered in determining whether the votes cast therein, in favor of a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, sufficed to satisfy the requirements of the latter, such question being a political one. The weight of this decision, as a precedent, has been weakened, however, by our resolutions in Avelino vs. Cuenco (83 Phil., 17), in which this Court proceeded to determine the number essential to constitute a quorum in the Senate. Besides, the case at bar does not hinge on the number of votes needed for a particular act of said body. The issue before us is whether the Senate-after acknowledging that the Citizens Party is the party, having the second largest number of votes in the Senate, to which party the Constitution gives the right to nominate three (3) Senators for the Senate electoral Tribunal-could validly choose therefor two (2) Nacionalista Senators, upon nomination by the floor leader of the Nacionalista Party in the Senate, Senator Primicias claiming to act on behalf of the Committee on Rules for the Senate. The issue in the Cabili case was whether we could review a resolution of the Senate reorganizing its representation
- 27. in the Commissionon Appointments. This was decided in the negative, upon the authority of Alejandrino vs . Quezon (supra) and Vera vs. Avelino (supra), the main purpose of the petition being "to force upon the Senate the reinstatement of Senator Magalona in the Commission on Appointments," one-half (1/2) of the members of which is to be elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein. Hence, the issue depended mainly on the determination of the political alignment of the members of the Senate at the time of said reorganization and of the necessity or advisability of effecting said reorganization, which is a political question. We are not called upon, in the case at bar, to pass upon an identical or similar question, it being conceded, impliedly, but clearly, that the Citizens Party is the party with the second largest number of votes in the Senate. The issue, therefore, is whether a right vested by the Constitution in the Citizens Party may validly be exercised, either by the Nacionalista Party, or by the Committee on Rules for the Senate, over the objection of said Citizens Party. xxx x xx x xx The only ground upon which respondents' objection to the jurisdiction of this Court and their theory to the effect that the proper remedy for petitioners herein is, not the present action, but an appeal to public opinion, could possibly be entertained is, therefore, whether the case at bar raises merely a political question, not one justiciable in nature. In this connection, respondents assert in their answer that "the remedy of petitioners is not in the judicial forum, but, to use petitioner, Tañada's own words, to bring the matter to the bar of public opinion' (p. 81, Discussion on the Creation of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, February 21, 1956)." This allegation may give the impression that said petitioner had declared, on the floor of the Senate, that his only relief against the acts complained of in the petition is to take up the issue before the people- which is not a fact. During the discussions in the Senate, in the course of the organization of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, on February 21, 1956, Senator Tañada was asked what remedies he would suggest if he nominated two (2) Nacionialista Senators and the latter declined the, nomination. Senator Tañada replied:. "There are two remedies that occur to my mind right now, Mr. Senator; one is the remedy open to all of us that if we feel aggrieved and there is no recourse in the court of justice, we can appeal to public opinion. Another remedy is an action in the Supreme Court. Of course, as Senator Rodriguez, our President here, has said one day; "If you take this matter to the Supreme Court, you will lose, because until now the Supreme Court has always ruled against any action that would constitute interference in the business of anybody pertainin g to the Senate. The theory of separation of powers will be upheld by the Supreme Court." But that learned opinion of Senator Rodriguez, our President, notwithstanding, I may take the case to the Supreme Court if my right herein is not respected. I may lose, Mr. President, but who has not lost in the Supreme Court? I may lose because of the theory of the separation of powers, but that does not mean, Mr. President, that what has been done here is pursuant to the provision of the Constitution." (Congressional Record, Vol. III, p. 339; emphasis supplied.). This statement did not refer to the nomination, by Senator Primicias, and the election, by the Senate, of Senators Cuenco and Delgado as members of said Tribunal. Indeed, said nomination and election took place the day after the aforementioned statement of Senator Tañada was made. At any rate, the latter announced that he might "take the case to the Supreme Court if my right here is not respected.". As already adverted to, the objection to our jurisdiction hinges on the question whether the issue before us is political or not. In this connection, Willoughby lucidly states:. "Elsewhere in this treatise the well-known and well-established principle is considered that it is not within the province of the courts to pass judgment upon the policy of legislative or executive action. Where, therefore, discretionary powers are granted by the Constitution or by statute, the manner in which those powers are exercised is not subject to judicial review. The courts, therefore, concern themselves only with the question as to the existence and extent of these discretionary powers. "As distinguished from the judicial, the legislative and executive departments are spoken of as the political departments of government because in very many cases their action is necessarily dictated by considerations of public or political policy. These considerations of public or political policy of course will not permit the legislature to violate constitutional provisions, or the executive to exercise authority not granted him by the Constitution or by, statute, but, within these limits, they do permit the departments, separately or together, to recognize that a certain set of facts exists or that a given status exists, and these determinations, together with the consequences that flow therefrom, may not be traversed in the courts." (Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, p.
- 28. 1326; emphasis supplied.). Tothe same effect is the language used in Corpus JurisSecundum, from which we quote:. "It is well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions. "It is not easy, however, to define the phrase `political question', nor to determine what matters, fall within its scope. It is frequently used to designate all questions that lie outside the scope of the judicial questions, which under the constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government." (16 C.J.S., 413; see, also Geauga Lake Improvement Ass'n. vs. Lozier, 182 N. E. 491, 125 Ohio St. 565; Sevillavs, Elizalde, 112 F. 2d 29, 72 App. D. C., 108; emphasis supplied.). Thus, it has been repeatedly held that the question whether certain amendments to the Constitution are invalid for non-compliance with the procedure therein prescribed, is not a political one and may be settled by the Courts. 5 . In the case of In re McConaughy (119 N.W. 408), the nature of political question was considered carefully. The Court said:. "At the threshold of the case we are met with the assertion that the questions involved are political, and not judicial. If this is correct, the court has no jurisdiction as the certificate of the state canvassing board would then be final, regardless of the actual vote upon the amendment. The question thus raised is a fundamental one; but it has been so often decided contrary to the view contended for by the Attorney General that it would seem to be finally settled. xxx x xx x xx. " .. What is generally meant, when it is, said that a question is political, and not judicial, is that it is a matter which, is to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity, or that it has been specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act. See State vs. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 497, 51 L. R. A. 561; In Re Gunn, 50 Kan. 155; 32 Pac. 470, 948, 19 L. R. A. 519; Green vs. Mills, 69 Fed. 852, 16, C. C. A. 516, 30 L. R. A. 90; Fletcher vs. Tuttle, 151 Ill. 41, 37 N. E. 683, 25 L. R. A. 143, 42 Am. St. Rep. 220. Thus the Legislature may in its discretion determine whether it will pass a law or submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the people. The courts have no judicial control over such matters, not merely because they involve political question, but because they are matters which the people have by the Constitution delegated to the Legislature. The Governor may exercise the powers delegated to him, free from judicial control, so long as he observes the laws and acts within the limits of the power conferred. His discretionary acts cannot be controllable, not primarily because they are of a political nature, but because the Constitution and laws have placed the particular matter under his control. But every officer unde r a constitutional government must act according to law and subject him to the restraining and controlling power of the people, acting through the courts, as well as through the executive or the Legislature. One department is just as representative as the other, and the judiciary is the department which is charged with the special duty of determining the limitations which the law places upon all official action. The recognition of this principle, unknown except in Great Britain and America, is necessary, to the end that the government may be one of laws and not men'-words which Webster said were the greatest contained in any written constitutional document." (pp. 411, 417; emphasis supplied.). In short, the term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus JurisSecundum (supra), it refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. Such is not the nature of the question for determination in the present case. Here, we are called upon to decide whether the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado, by the Senate, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, upon nomination by Senator Primicias-a member and spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate-on behalf of its Committee on Rules, contravenes the constitutional mandate that said members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal shall be chosen "upon nomination ..of the party having the second
- 29. largest number ofvotes" in the Senate, and hence, is null and void. This is not a political question. The Senate is not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in the choice of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional limitations which are claimed to be mandatory in nature. It is clearly within the legitimate prove of the judicial department to pass upon the validity the proceedings in connection therewith. "..whether an election of public officers has been in accordance with law is for the judiciary. Moreover, where the legislative department has by statute prescribed election procedure in a given situation, the judiciary may determine whether a particular election has been in conformity with such statute, and, particularly, whether such statute has been applied in a way to deny or transgress on the constitutional or statutory rights .."(16 C.J.S., 439; emphasis supplied.). It is, therefore, our opinion that we have, not only jurisdiction, but, also, the duty, to consider and determine the principal issue raised by the parties herein. II. Is the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado, by the Senate, as members of the Electoral Tribunal, valid and lawful?. Section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution, reads:. "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 of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen by each House, three upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest number of votes therein. The Senior Justice in each Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman." (Emphasis supplied.). It appears that on February 22, 1956, as well as at present, the Senate of the Philippines consists of twenty three (23) members of the Nacionalista Party and one (1) member of the Citizens Party, namely, Senator Tañada, who is, also, the president of said party. In the session of the Senate held on February 21, 1956, Senator Sabido moved that Senator Tañada, "the President of the Citizens Party, be given the privilege to nominate ..three (3) members" of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, pp. 328-329), referring to those who, according to the provision above-quoted, should be nominated by "the party having the second largest number of votes" in the Senate. Senator Tañada objected formally to this motion upon the-ground: (a) that the right to nominate said members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal belongs, not to the Nacionalista Party of which Senator Sabido and the other Senators are members-but to the Citizens Party, as the one having the second largest number of votes in the Senate, so that, being devoid of authority to nominate the aforementioned members of said Tribunal, the Nacionalista Party cannot give it to the Citizens Party, which, already, has such authority, pursuant to the Constitution; and (b) that Senator Sabido's motion would compel Senator Tañada to nominate three (3) Senators to said Tribunal, although as representative of the minority party in the Senate he has "the right to nominate one, two or three to the Electoral Tribunal," in his discretion. Senator Tañada further stated that he reserved the right to determine how many he would nominate, after hearing the reasons of Senator Sabido in support of his motion. After some discussion, in which Senators Primicias, Cea, Lim, Sumulong, Zulueta, and Rodrigo took part, the Senate adjourned until the next morning, February 22, 1956 (Do., do, pp. 329, 330, 332-333, 336, 338, 339, 343). Then, said issues were debated upon more extensively, with Senator Sumulong, not only seconding the opposition of Senator Tañada, but, also, maintaining that "Senator Tañada should nominate only one" member of the Senate, namely, himself, he being the only Senator who belongs to the minority party in said House (Do., do., pp. 360-364, 369). Thus, a new issue was raised - whether or not one who does not belong to said party may be nominated by its spokesman, Senator Tañada - on which Senators Paredes, Pelaez, Rosales and Laurel, as well as the other Senators already mentioned, expressed their views (Do., do., pp. 345, 349, 350, 354, 358, 364, 375). Although the deliberations of the Senate consumed the whole morning and afternoon of February 22, 1956, a satisfactory solution of the question before the Senate appeared to be remote. So, at 7:40 p.m., the meeting was suspended, on motion of Senator Laurel, with a view to seeking a compromise formula (Do., do., pp. 377). When session was resumed at 8:10 p.m., Senator Sabido withdrew his motion above referred to. Thereupon, Senator Primicias, on behalf of the Nacionalista Party, nominated, and the Senate elected, Senators Laurel, Lopez and Primicias, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Subsequently, Senator Tañada stated:.
- 30. "On behalf ofthe Citizens Party, the minority party in this Body, I nominate the only Citizens Party member in this Body, and that is Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada.". Without an objection, this nomination was approved by the House. Then, Senator Primicias stood up and said:. "Now, Mr. President, in order to comply with the provision in the Constitution, the Committee on Rules of the Senate-and I am now making this proposal not on behalf of the Nacionalista Party but on behalf of the Committee on Rules of the Senate-I nominate two other members to complete the membership of the Tribunal: Senators Delgado and Cuenco.". What took place thereafter appears in the following quotations from the Congressional Record for the Senate. "SENATOR TAÑADA. Mr. President. "EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO. Caballero de Quezon. "SENATOR TAÑADA. I would like to record my opposition to the nominations of the last two named gentlemen, Senators Delgado and Cuenco, not because I don't believe that they do not deserve to be appointed to the tribunal but because of my sincere and firm conviction that these additional nominations are not sanctioned by the Constitution. The Constitution only permits the Nacionalista Party or the party having the largest number of votes to nominate three. "SENATOR SUMULONG. Mr. President. "EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO. Caballero de Rizal. "SENATOR SUMULONG. For the reasons that I have stated a few moments ago when I took the floor, I also wish to record my objection to the last nominations, to the nomination of two additional NP's to the Electoral Tribunal. "EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO. Estadispuesto el Senado a votar? (VariosSenadores: Si.) Los queestenconformes con la nominacionhechapor el Presidente del Comite de Reglamentos a favor de los Senadores Delgado y Cuencoparasermiembros del Tribunal Electoral, digan, si. (VariosSenadores: Si.) Los que no lo estendigan, no (Silencio.) Quedaaprobada." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, p. 377; emphasis supplied.). Petitioners maintain that said nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado-who belong to the Nacionalista Party-as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, are null and void and have been made without power or color of authority, for, after the nomination by said party, and the election by the Senate, of Senators Laurel, Lopez and Primicias, as members of said Tribunal, the other Senators, who shall be members thereof, must necessarily be nominated by the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate, and such party is, admittedly, the Citizens Party, to which Senator Tañada belongs and which he represents. Respondents allege, however, that the constitutional mandate to the effect that "each Electoral Tribunal shall be compose of nine (9) members," six (6) of whom "shall be members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be", is mandatory; that when-after the nomination of three (3) Senators by the majority party, and their election by the Senate, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal-Senator Tañada nominated himself only, on behalf of the minority party, he thereby "waived his right to no two more Senators;" that, when Senator Primicias nominated Senators Cuenco and Delgado, and these respondents were chosen by the Senate, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, Said Senator Primicias and the Senate merely complied with the aforementioned provision of the fundamental law, relative to the number of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal; and, that, accordingly, Senators Cuenco and Delgado are de jure members of said body, and the appointment of their co-respondents, Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes is valid and lawful. At the outset, it will be recalled that the proceedings the organization of the Senate Electoral Tribunal began with a motion of Senator Sabido to the effect that "the distinguished gentleman from Quezon, the President of the Citizens Party, be given the privilege to nominate the three Members" of said Tribunal. Senator Primicias inquired why the movant had used the word "privilege". Senator Sabido explained that the present composition of the Senate had
- 31. created a conditionor situation which was not anticipated by the framers of our Constitution; that although Senator Tañada formed part of the Nacionalista Party before the end of 1955, he subsequently parted ways with" said party; and that Senator Tañada "is the distinguished president of the Citizens Party," which "approximates the situation desired by the framers of the Constitution" (Congressional Record for the Senate Vol. III, pp. 329 -330). Then Senator Lim intervened, stating:. "At present Senator Tañada is considered as forming the only minority or the one that has the second largest number of votes in the existing Senate, is not that right? And if this is so, he should be given this as a matter of right, not as a matter of privilege. .. I don't believe that we should be allowed to grant this authority to Senator Tañada only as a privilege but we must grant it as a matter of right." (Id., id., p. 32; emphasis supplied.). Similarly, Senator Sumulong maintained that "Senator Tañada, as Citizens Party Senator, has the right and not a mere privilege to nominate," adding that:. "..the question is whether we have a party here having the second largest number of votes, and it is clear in my mind that there is such a party, and that is the Citizens Party to which the gentleman from Quezon belongs. .. We have to bear in mind, ..that when Senator Tañada was included in the Nacionalista Party ticket in 1953, it was by virtue of a coalition or an alliance between the Citizens Party and the Nacionalista Party at that time, and I m aintain that when Senator Tañada as head of the Citizens Party entered into a coalition with the Nacionalista Party, he did not thereby become a Nacionalista because that was a mere coalition, not a fusion. When the Citizens Party entered into a mere coalition, that party did not lose its personality as a party separate and distinct from the, Nacionalista Party. And we should also remember that the certificate of candidacy filed by Senator Tañada in the 1953 election was one to the effect that he belonged to the Citizens Party .." (Id., id., p. 360; emphasis supplied.). The debate was closed by Senator Laurel, who remarked, referring to Senator Tañada:. "..there is no doubt that he does not belong to the majority in the first place, and that, therefore, he belongs to the minority. And whether we like it or not, that is the reality of the actual situation -that he is not a Nacionalista now, that he is the head and the representative of the Citizens Party. I think that on equitable ground and from the point of view of public opinion, his situation ..approximates or approaches what is within the spirit of that Constitution. ..and from the point of view of the spirit of the Constitution it would be a good thing if we grant the opportunity to Senator Tañada to help us in the organization of this Electoral Tribunal (Id., id., p. 376; emphasis supplied.). The foregoing statements and the fact that, thereafter, Senator Sabido withdrew his motion to grant Senator Tañada the "privilege" to nominate, and said petitioner actually nominated himself "on behalf of the Citizens Party, the minority party in this Body"-not only without any, objection whatsoever, but, also, with the approval of the Senate-leave no room for doubt that the Senate-leave no room for doubt that the Senate has regarded the Citizens Party, represented by Senator Tañada, as the party having the second largest number of votes in said House. Referring, now, to the contention of respondents herein, their main argument in support of the mandatory character of the constitutional provision relative to the number of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal is that the word "shall", therein used, is imperative in nature and that this is borne out by an opinion of the Secretary of Justice dated February 1, 1939, pertinent parts of which are quoted at the footnote. 6. Regardless of the respect due its author, as a distinguished citizen and public official, said opinion has little, if any, weight in the solution of the question before this Court, for the practical construction of a Constitution is of little, if any, unless it has been uniform .." 6a Again, "as a general rule, it is only in cases of substantial doubt and ambiguity that the doctrine of contemporaneous or practical construction has any application". As a consequence, "where the meaning of a constitutional provision is clear, a contemporaneous or practical executive interpretation thereof is entitled to no weight, and will not be allowed to distort or in any way change its natural meaning." The reason is that "the application of the doctrine of contemporaneous construction is more restricted as applied to the interpretation of constitutional provisions than when applied to statutory provisions", and that, "except as to matters committed by the Constitution, itself to the discretion of some other department, contemporary or practical construction is not necessarily binding upon the courts, even in a doubtful case." Hence, "if in the judgment of the court, such construction is erroneous and its further application is not made imperative by any paramount considerations of public policy, it may he rejected." (16 C. J. S., 71-72; emphasis supplied.) 6b. The aforemention opinion of the Secretary of Justice is not backed up by a, "uniform" application of the view therein
- 32. adopted, so essentialto give thereto the weight accorded by the rules on contemporaneous constructions. Moreover, said opinion tends to change the natural meaning of section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution, which is clear. What is more, there is not the slightest doubt in our mind that the purpose and spirit of said provisions do not warrant said change and that the rejection of the latter is demanded by paramount considerations of public policy. . The flaw in the position taken in said opinion and by respondent herein is that, while, it relies upon the compulsory nature of the word "shall", as regards the number of members of the Electoral Tribunals, it ignores the fact that the same term is used with respect to the method prescribed for their election, and that both form part of a single sentence and must be considered, therefore, as integral portions of one and the same thought. Indeed, respondents have not even tried to show and we cannot conceive-why "shall" must be deemed mandatory insofar as the number of members of each Electoral Tribunal, and should be considered directory as regards the procedure for their selection. More important still, the history of section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution and the records of the Convention, refute respondents' pretense, and back up the theory of petitioners herein. Commenting on the frame of mind of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, when they faced the task of providing for the adjudication of contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the Legislative Department, Dr. Jose M. Aruego, a member of said Convention, says:. "The experience of the Filipino people under the provisions of the organic laws which left to the lawmaking body the determination of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members was not altogether satisfactory. There were many complaints against the lack of political justice in this determination; for in a great number of cases, party interests controlled and dictated the decisions. The undue delay in the dispatch of election contests for legislative seats, the irregularities that characterized the proceedings in some of them, and the very apparent injection of partisanship in the determination of a great number of the cases were decried by a great number of the people as well as by the organs of public opinion. "The faith of the people in the uprightness of the lawmaking body in the performance of this function assigned to it in the organic laws was by no means great. In fact so blatant was the lack of political justice in the decisions that there was, gradually built up a camp of thought in the Philippines inclined to leave to the courts the determination of election contests, following the practice in some countries, like England and Canada. "Such were the conditions of things at the time of the meeting of the convention." (The Framing of the Philippine Constitution by Aruego, Vol. 1, pp. 257-258; emphasis supplied.). This view is shared by distinguished members of the Senate. Thus, in its session of February 22, 1956, Senator Sumulong declared:. "..when you leave it to either House to decide election protests involving its own members, that is virtually placing the majority party in a position to dictate the decision in those election cases, because each House will be composed of a majority and a minority, and when you make each House the judge of every election protest involving any member of that House, you place the majority in a position to dominate and dictate the decision in the case and result was, there were so many abuses, there were so main injustices: committed by the majority at the expense and to the prejudice of the minority protestants. Statements have been made here that justice was done even under the old system, like that case involving Senator Mabanag, when he almost became a victim of the majority when he had an election case, and it was only through the intervention of President Quezon that he was saved from becoming the victim of majority injustices. "It is true that justice had sometimes prevailed under the old system, but the record will show that those cases were few and they were the rare exceptions. The overwhelming majority of election protests decided under the old system was that the majority being then in a position to dictate the, decision in the election protest, was tempted to commit as it did commit many abuses and injustices." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. 111, p. 361; emphasis supplied.). Senator Paredes, a veteran legislator and former Speaker of the House of Representatives, said:. "..what was intended in the creation of the electoral tribunal was to create a sort of collegiate court composed of nine members: Three of them belonging to the party having the largest number of votes, and three from the party having the second largest number votes so that these members may represent the party, and the members of said
- 33. party who willsit before the electoral tribunal as protestees. For when it comes to a party, Mr. President, there ground to believe that decisions will be made along party lines." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, p. 351; emphasis supplied.). Senator Laurel, who played an important role in the framing of our Constitution, expressed himself as follows:. "Now, with reference to the protests or contests, relating to the election, the returns and the qualifications of the members of the legislative bodies, I heard it said here correctly that there was a time when that was given to the corresponding chamber of the legislative department. So the election, returns and qualifications of the members, of the Congress or legislative body was entrusted to that body itself as the exclusive body to determine the election, returns and qualifications of its members. There was some doubt also expressed as to whether that should continue or not, and the greatest argument in favor of the retention of that provision was the fact that was, among other things, the system obtaining in the United States under the Federal Constitution of the United States, and there was no reason why that power or that right vested in the legislative body should not be retained. But it was thought that would make the determination of this contest, of this election protest, purely political as has been observed in the past." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, p. 376; emphasis supplied.). It is interesting to note that not one of the members of the Senate contested the accuracy of the views thus expressed. Referring particularly to the philosophy underlying the constitutional provision quoted above, Dr. Aruego states:. "The defense of the Electoral Commission was based primarily upon the hope and belief that the abolition of Party line because of the equal representation in this body of the majority and the minority parties of the National Assembly and the intervention of some members of the Supreme Court who, under the proposed constitutional provision, would also be members of the same, would insure greater political justice in the determination of election contests for seats in the National Assembly than there would be if the power had been lodged in the lawmaking body itself. Delegate Francisco summarized the arguments for the creation of the Electoral Commission in the following words:. "I understand that from the time that this question is placed in the hands of members not only of the majority party but also of the minority party, there is already a condition, a factor which would make protests decided in a non- partisan manner. We know from experience that many times in the many protests tried in the House or in the Senate, it was impossible to prevent the factor of party from getting in. From the moment that it is required that not only the majority but also the minority should intervene in these questions, we have already enough guarantee that there would be no tyranny on the part of the majority. `But there is another more detail which is the one which satisfies me most, and that is the intervention of three justices. So that with this intervention of three justices if there would be any question as to the justice applied by the majority or the minority, if there would be any fundamental disagreement, or if there would be nothing but questions purely of party in which the members of the majority as well as those of the minority should wish to take lightly a protest because the protestant belongs to one of said parties, we have in this case, as a check upon the two parties, the actuations of the three justices. In the last analysis, what is really applied in the determination of electoral cases brought before the tribunals of justice or before the House of Representatives or the Senate? Well, it is nothing more than the law and the doctrine of the Supreme Court. If that is the case, there will be greater skill in the application of the laws and in the application of doctrines to electoral matters having as we shall have three justices who will act impartially in these electoral questions. `I wish to call the attention of my distinguished colleagues to the fact that in electoral protests it is impossible to set aside party interests. Hence, the best guarantee, I repeat, for the administration of justice to the parties, for the fact that the laws will not be applied rightfully or incorrectly as well as for the fact that the doctrines of the Supreme Court will be applied rightfully, the best guarantee which we shall have, I repeat, is the intervention of the three justices. And with the formation of the Electoral Commission, I say again, the protestants as well as the protestees could remain tranquil in the certainty that they will receive the justice that they really deserve. If we eliminate from this precept the intervention of the party of the minority and that of the three justices, then we shall be placing protests exclusively in the hands of the party in power. And I understand, gentlemen, that in practice that has not given good results. Many have criticized, many have complained against, the tyranny of the majority in electoral cases .. I repeat that the best guarantee the fact that these questions will be judged not only by three members of
- 34. the majority butalso by three members of the minority, with the additional guarantee of the impartial judgment of three justices of the Supreme Court." (The Framing of the Philippine Constitution by Aruego, Vol. I, pp. 261-263; emphasis supplied.). The foregoing was corroborated by Senator Laurel. Speaking for this Court, in Angara vs. Electoral Commission (63 Phil., 139), he asserted:. "The members of the Constitutional Convention who framed our fundamental law were in their majority-men mature in years and experience. To be sure, many of them were familiar with the history and political development of other countries of the world. When, therefore they deemed it wise to create an Electoral Commission as a constitutional organ and invested with the exclusive function of passing upon and determining the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly, they must have done so not only in the light of their own experience but also having in view the experience of other enlightened peoples of the world. The creation of the Electoral Commission was designed to remedy certain evils of which the framers of our Constitution were cognizant. Notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of some members of the Convention to its creation, the plan, as hereinabove stated, was approved by that body by a vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said now is that, upon the approval of the Constitution, the creation of the Electoral Commission is the expression of the wisdom `ultimate justice of the people'. (Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.). "From the deliberations of our Constitutional Convention it is evident that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all the powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its members, to an independent and impartial tribunal. It was not so much the knowledge and appreciation of contemporary constitutional precedents, however, as the long felt need of determining legislative contests devoid of partisan considerations which prompted the people acting through their delegates to the Convention, to provide for this body known as the Electoral Commission. With this end in view, a composite body in which both the majority and minority parties are equally represented to off-set partisan influence in its deliberations was created, and further endowed with judicial temper by including in its membership three justices of the Supreme Court," (Pp. 174-175.) 7. As a matter of fact, during the deliberations of the convention, Delegates Conejero and Roxas said:. "El Sr. CONEJERO. Antes de votarse la enmienda, quisierapedirinformacion del Subcomite de Siete. "El Sr. PRESIDENTE. Que dice el Comite?" El Sr. ROXAS. Con mucho gusto. "El Sr. CONEJERO. Tal comoesta el draft.,dandotresmiembrosalamayoria, y otros t?-es a la minyoryia y atros a la Corte Suprerma, no creesuSenoriaqueesteequivalepricticamente a dejar el asunto a los miembros del Tribunal Supremo?. "El Sr. ROXAS. Si y no.Creemosquesi el tribunal a la Comisionestacotistuido en esa forma, tanto los miembros de la mayoriacomo los de la minoriaasicomo los miembros de la Corte Saprema consideration la cuestionsobre la base de susmeritos, sabiendoque el partidismo no essuficienteparadar el triunbo. "El Sr. CONEJERO. Cree Su Senoriaque en un casocomoese, podriamoshacerquetanto los de la mayoriacomo los de la minoriaprescindieran del partidisrno?. "El Sr. ROXAS. Creoquesi, porque el partidismo no les daria el triunfo." (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, supra, pp. 168-169; emphasis supplied.). It is clear from the foregoing that the main objective of the framers of our Constitution in providing for the establishment, first, of an Electoral Commission, 8 and then 9 of one Electoral Tribunal for each House of Congress, was to insure the exercise of judicial impartiality in the disposition of election contests affecting members of the lawmaking body. To achieve this purpose, two devices were resorted to, namely: (a) the party having the largest number of votes, and the party having the second largest number of votes, in the National Assembly or in each House of Congress, were given the same number of representatives in the Electoral Commission or Tribunal, so that they may realize that partisan considerations could not control the adjudication of said cases, and thus be induced to act with greater impartiality; and (b) the Supreme Court was given in said body the same number of representatives as each one of said political parties, so that the influence of the former may be decisive and endow said Commission or Tribunal with judicial temper. This is obvious from the very language of the constitutional provision under consideration. I n fact, Senator Sabido-
- 35. who had movedto grant to Senator Tañada the privilege" to make the nominations on behalf of party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate-agrees with it. As Senator Sumulong inquired:. "..I suppose Your Honor will agree with me that the framers of the Constitution precisely thought of creating this Electoral Tribunal so as to prevent the majority from ever having a preponderant majority in the Tribunal." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, p. 330; emphasis supplied.). Senator Sabido replied:. "That is so, .."(Id., p. 330.). Upon further interpretation, Senator Sabido said:. "..the purpose of the creation of the Electoral Tribunal and of its composition is to maintain a balance between the two parties and make the members of the Supreme Court the controlling power so to speak of the Electoral Tribunal or hold the balance of power. That is the ideal situation." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, p. 349; emphasis supplied.). Senator Sumulong opined along the same line. His words were: . "..The intention is that when the three from the majority and the three from the minority become members of the Tribunal it is hoped that they will become aware of their judicial functions, not to protect the protestants or the protegees. It is hoped that they will act as judges because to decide election cases is a judicial function. But the framers of, the Constitution besides being learned were men of experience. They knew that even Senators like us are not angels, that we are human beings, that if we should be chosen to go to the Electoral Tribunal no one can say that we will entirely be free from partisan influence to favor our party, so that in, case that hope that the three from the majority and the three from the minority who will act as Judges should result in disappointment, in case they do not act as judges but they go there and vote along party liner, still there is the guarantee that they will offset each other and the result will be that the deciding vote will reside in the hands of the three Justices who have no partisan motives to favor either the protestees or the protestants. In other words, the whole idea is to prevent the majority from controlling and dictating the decisions of the Tribunal and to make sure that the decisive vote will be wielded by the Congressmen or Senators who are members the Tribunal but will be wielded by the Justices who, by virtue of their judicial offices, will have no partisan motives to serve, either protestants, or protest ees. That is my understanding of the intention of the framers of the Constitution when they decided to create the Electoral Tribunal. xxx x xx x xx. "My idea is that the intention of the framers of the constitution in creating the Elect oral Tribunal is to insure impartially and independence in its decision, and that is sought to be done by never allowing the majority party to control the Tribunal, and secondly by seeing to it that the decisive vote in the Tribunal will be left in the han ds of persons who have no partisan interest or motive to favor either protestant or protestee." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, pp. 362-363, 365-366; emphasis supplied.). So important in the "balance of powers" between the two political parties in the Electoral Tribunals, that several members of the Senate questioned the right of the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate and, hence, of Senator Tañada, as representative of the Citizens Party-to nominate for the Senate Electoral Tribunal any Senator not belonging to said party. Senators Lim, Sabido, Cea and Paredes maintained that the spirit of the Constitution would be violated if the nominees to the Electoral Tribunals did not belong to the parties respectively making the nominations. 10. It is not necessary, for the purpose of this decision, to determine whether the parties having the largest, and the second largest, number of votes in each House may nominate, to the Electoral Tribunals, those members of Congress who do not belong to the party nominating them. It is patent, however, that the most vital feature of the Electoral Tribunals is the equal representation of said parties therein, and the resulting equilibrium to be maintained by the Justices of the Supreme Court as members of said Tribunals. In the words of the members of the present Senate, said feature reflects the "intent" "purpose", and "spirit of the Constitution", pursuant to which the Senate Electoral Tribunal should be organized (Congressional Record for the Senate, pp. 330, 337, 348-9, 350, 351, 355, 358, 362-3, 364, 370, 376).
- 36. Now then, itis well settled that "the purpose of all rules or maxims as to the construction or interpretation of statutes is to discover the true intention of the law" (82 C. J. S., 526) and that. "As a general rule of statutory construction, the spirit or intention of a statute prevails over the letter thereof, and whatever is within the spirit of statute is within the statute although it is not within the letter, while that whic h is within the letter, but not within the spirit of a statute, is not within the statute; but, where the law is free and clear from ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded on the pretext of pursuing its spirit." (82 C. J. S., 613.). "There is no universal rule or absolute test by which directory provisions in a statute may in all circumstances be distinguished from those which are mandatory. However, in the determination of this question, as of every other question of statutory construction, the prime object is to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent must be obtained front all the surrounding circumstances, and the determination does not depend on the form of the statute. Consideration must be given to the entire statute, its nature, its object, and the consequences which would result from construing it one way or the other, and the statute must be construed in connection with other related statutes. Words of permissive character may be given a mandatory significance in order to effect the legislative intent, and, when the terms of a statute are such that they cannot be made effective to the extent of giving each and all of them some reasonable operation, without construing the statute as mandatory, such construction should be given; .. On the other hand, the language of a statute, however mandatory in form, may be deemed directory whenever legislative purpose can best be carried out by such construction, and the legislative intent does not require a mandatory construction; but the construction of mandatory words as directory should not be lightly adopted and never where it would in fact make a new law instead of that passed by the legislature. .. Whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends on whether the thing directed to be done is of the essence of the thing required, or is a mere matter of form, and what is a matter of essence can often be determined only by judicial construction. Accordingly, when a particular provision of a statute relates to some immaterial matter, as to which compliance with the statute is a matter of convenience rather than substance, or where the directions of a statute are given merely with a view to the proper, orderly, and prompt conduct of business, it is generally regarded as directory, unless followed by words of absolute prohibition; and a statute is regarded as directory were no substantial rights depend on it, no injury can result from ignoring it, and the purpose of the legislative can be accomplished in a manner other than that prescribed, with substantially the same result. On the other hand, a provision relating to the essence of the thing to be done, that is, to matters of substance, is mandatory, and when a fair interpretation of a statute, which directs acts or proceedings to be don e in a certain way shows that the legislature intended a compliance with such provision to be essential to the validity of the act or proceeding, or when same antecedent and pre-requisite conditions must exist prior to the exercise of power, or must be performed before certain other powers can be exercise, the statute must be regarded as mandatory. (Id., pp. 869-874.) (See also, Words and Phrases, Vol. 26, pp. 463-467; emphasis supplied.). What has been said above, relative to the conditions antecedent to, and concomitant with, the adoption of section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution, reveals clearly that its framers intended to prevent the majority party from controlling the Electoral Tribunals, and that the structure thereof is founded upon the equilibrium between the majority and the minority parties therein, with the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are members of said Tribunals, holding the resulting balance of power. The procedure prescribed in said provision for the selection of members of the Electoral Tribunals is vital to the role they are called upon to play. it constitutes the essence of said Tribunals. Hence, compliance with said procedure is mandatory, and acts performed in violation thereof are null and void. 11. It is true that the application of the foregoing criterion would limit the membership of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, in the case at bar, to seven (7), instead of nine (9), members; but, it is conceded that the present composition of the Senate was not foreseen by the framers of our Constitution (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, pp. 329, 342, 349, 354, 359, 375). Furthermore, the spirit of the law prevails over its letter, and the solution herein adopted maintains the spirit of the Constitution, for partisan considerations can not be decisive in a tribunal consisting of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court, three (3) members nominated by the majority party and either one (1) or two (2) members nominated by the party having the second largest number of votes in the House concerned. Upon the other hand, what would be the result of respondents' contention if upheld? Owing to the fact that the Citizens Party 12 has only one member in the Upper House, Senator Tañada felt he should nominate, for the Senate Electoral Tribunal, only said member of the Citizens Party. The same is, thus, numerically handicapped, vis-a-vis the majority party, in said Tribunal. Obviously, Senator Tañada did not nominate other two Senators, because, otherwise, he would worsen the already disadvantageous position, therein, of the Citizens Party. Indeed,
- 37. by the aforementionednomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado, if the same were sanctioned, the Nacionalista Party would have five (5) members in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, as against one (1) member of the Citizens Party and three members of the Supreme Court. With the absolute majority thereby attained by the majority party in said Tribunal, the philosophy underlying the same would be entirely upset. The equilibrium between the political parties therein would be destroyed. What is worst, the decisive moderating role of the Justices of the Supreme Court would be wiped out, and, in lieu thereof, the door would be thrown wide open for the predominance of political considerations in the determination of election protests pending before said Tribunal, which is precisely what the fathers of our Constitution earnestly strove to forestall. 13. This does not imply that the honesty, integrity or impartiality of Senators Cuenco and Delgado are being questioned. As a matter of fact, when Senator Tañada objected to their nomination, he explicitly made of record that his opposition was based, not upon their character, but upon the principle involved. When the election of members of Congress to the Electoral Tribunal is made dependent upon the nomination of the political parties above referred to, the Constitution thereby indicates its reliance upon the method of selection thus established, regardless of the individual qualities of those chosen therefor. Considering the wealth of experience of the delegatesto the Convention, as lawyers of great note, as veteran politicians and as leaders in other fields of endeavor, they could not, and did not, ignore the fact that the Constitution must limit itself to giving general patterns or norms of action. In connection, particularly, with the composition of the Electoral Tribunals, they believed that, even the most well meaning individuals often find it difficult to shake off the bias and prejudice created by political antagonisms and to resist the demands of political exigencies, the pressure of which is bound to increase in proportion to the degree of predominance of the party from which it comes. As above stated, this was confirmed by distinguished members of the present Senate. (See pp. 25-28, 33, 34, supra.). In connection with the argument of the former Secretary of Justice to the effect that when "there is no minority party represented in the Assembly, the necessity for such a check by the minority disappears", the following observations of the petitioners herein are worthy of notice:. " Under the interpretation espoused by the respondents, the very frauds or terrorism committed by a party would establish the legal basis for the final destruction of minority parties in the Congress at least. Let us suppose, for example, that in the Senate, the 15 or 16 senators with unexpired terms belong to the party A. In the senatorial elections to fill the remaining 8 seats, all the 8 candidates of party A are proclaimed elected through alleged fraud and/or terrorism. (The ouster of not less than 3 senators-elect in the elections held since liberation attests to the reality of election frauds and terrorism in our country.) There being no senator or only one senator belonging to the minority, who would sit in judgment on the election candidates of the minority parties? According to the contention of the respondents, it would be a Senate Electoral Tribunal made up of three Supreme Court Justices and 5 or 6 members of the same party A accused of fraud and terrorism. Most respectfully, we pray this Honorable Court to reject an interpretation that would make of a democratic constitution the very instrument by which a corrupt and ruthless party could entrench itself in power the legislature and thus destroy democracy in the Philippines. xxx x xx x xx. ".. When there are no electoral protests filed by the Minority party, or when the only electoral protests filed are by candidates of the majority against members-elect of the same majority party, there might be no objection to the statement. But if electoral protests are filed by candidates of the minority party, it is at this point that a need for a check on the majority party is greatest, and contrary to the observation made in the above-quoted opinion, such a cheek is a function that cannot be successfully exercised by the 3 Justices of the Supreme Court, for the obvious and simple reason that they could easily be outvoted by the 6 members of the majority party in the Tribunal. xxx x xx x xx. "In the case of the cited opinion of Secretary Abad Santos rendered in 1939, it, did not appear that there were minority party candidates who were adversely affected by the ruling of the Secretary of Justice and who could have brought a test case to court." (Emphasis supplied.). The defenses of waiver and estoppel set up against petitioner Tañada are untenable. Although "an individual may waive constitutional provisions intended for his benefit", particularly those meant for the protection of his property, and, sometimes, even those tending "to secure his personal liberty", the power to waive does not exist when "public policy or public morals" are involved. (11 Am. Jur. 765; I Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, pp. 368-371).
- 38. The procedure outlinedin the Constitution for the organization, of the Electoral Tribunals was adopted in response to the demands of the common weal, and it has been held that where a statute is founded on public policy, those to whom it applies should not be permitted to waive its provisions" (82 C. J. S., 874). Besides, there can be no waiver without an intent to such effect, which Senator Tañada did not have. Again, the alleged waiver or exhaustion of his rights does not justify the exercise thereof by a person or party, other than that to which it is vested exclusively by the Constitution. The rule estoppel is that "whenever a party has, by his declaration, act or omissions, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in a litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it" (Rule 69, sec. 68 [a], Rules of Court). In the case at bar, petitioner Senator Tañada did not lead the Senate to believe that Senator Primicias could nominate Senators Cuenco and Delgado. On the contrary, said petitioner repeatedly asserted that his was the exclusive right to make the nomination. He, likewise, specifically contested said nomination of Senators Cuenco and Delgado. Again, the rule on estoppel applies to questions of fact, not of law, about the truth of which the other party is ignorant (see Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3, pp. 490, 495). Such is not the nature of the situation that confronted Senator Tañada and the other members of the Senate. Lastly, the case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa (66 Phil., 615), cited by respondents, is not in point. Judge Zandueta assumed office by virtue of an appointment, the legality of which he later on assailed. In the case at bar, the nomination and election of Senator Tañada as member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal was separate, distinct and independent from the nomination and election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Senate may not elect, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, those Senators who have not been nominated by the political parties specified in the Constitution; that the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate may nominate not more than three (3) members thereof to said Electoral Tribunal; that the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate has the exclusive right to nominate the other three (3) Senators who shall sit as members in the Electoral Tribun al; that neither these three (3) Senators, nor any of them, may be nominated by a person or party other than the one having the second largest number of votes in the Senate or its representative therein; that the Committee on Rules for the Senate has no standing to validly make such nomination and that the nomination of Senators Cuenco and Delgado by Senator Primicias, and the election of said respondents by the Senate, as members of said Tribunal, are null and void ab initio. As regards respondents Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes, we are not prepared to hold, however, that their appointments were null and void. Although recommended by Senators Cuenco and Delgado, who are not lawful members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, they were appointed by its Chairman, presumably, with the consent of the majority of the de jure members of said body 14 or, pursuant to the Rules thereof. At any rate, as held in Suanes vs. Chief Accountant (supra), the election of its personnel is an int ernal matter falling within the jurisdiction and control of said body, and there is every reason to believe that it will, hereafter take appropriate measures, in relation to the four (4) respondents abovementioned, conformably with the spirit of the Constitution and of, the decision in the case at bar. Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that, respondents Senators Mariano Jesus Cuenco and Francisco A. Delgado have not been duly elected as Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, that they are not entitled to act as such and that they should be, as they are hereby, enjoined from exercising the powers and duties of Members of said Electoral Tribunal and from acting in such capacity in connection with Senate Electoral Case No. 4 thereof. With the qualification stated above, the petition is dismissed, as regards respondents Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes. Without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., and Felix, JJ., concur. Paras, C.J., dissenting:. In 1939, Section (4) of Article VI of the Philippine Constitution provided that "There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, and three by the party having the second largest number of votes therein." As all the members of the National Assembly then belonged to the Nacionalista Party and a belief arose that it was impossible to comply
- 39. with the constitutionalrequirement that three members of the Electoral Commission should be nominated by the party having the second largest number of votes, the opinion of the Secretary of Justice was sought on the proper interpretation of the constitutional provision involved. Secretary of Justice Jose A. Santos accordingly rendered the following opinion:. "Sir:. "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of January 24, 1939, thru the office of His Excellency, the President, in which you request my opinion as `to the proper interpretation of the following provision of Section (4) of Article VI of the Philippine Constitution':. `There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, and three by the party having the second largest number of votes therein.'. "You state that `as all the members of the present National Assembly belong to the Nacionalista Party, it is impossible to comply with the last part of the provision which requires that three members shall be nominated by the party having the second largest number of votes in the Assembly.'. "The main features of the constitutional provision in question are: (1) that there shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six members chosen by the National Assembly; and that (2) of the six members to be chosen by the National Assembly, three shall be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes and three by the party having the second largest number of votes. "Examining the history of the constitutional provision, I find that in the first two drafts it was provided that the Electoral Commission shall be composed of `three members elected by the members of the party having the largest number of vote three elected by the members of the party having the second largest number of votes, and three justices of the Supreme Court ..(Aruego, The Framing of the Phil. Const., pp. 260-261). But as finally adopted by the Convention, the Constitution explicitly states that there shall be `six members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, an and three by the party having the second largest number of votes' (Aruego, The Framing of the Phil. Const., pp. 271-272). "From the foregoing changes in the phraseology of the provision, it is evident that the intention of the framers of our Constitution was that there should invariably be six members from the National Assembly. It was also intended to create a non-partisan body to decide any partisan contest that may be brought before the Commission. The primary object was to avoid decision based chiefly if not exclusively on partisan considerations. "The procedure or manner of nomination cannot possibly affect the constitutional mandate that the Assembly is entitled to six members in the Electoral Commission. When for lack of a minority representation in the Assembly the power to nominate three minority members cannot be exercised, it logically follows that the only party the Assembly may nominate three others, otherwise the explicit mandate of the Constitution that there shall be six members from the National Assembly would be nullified. "In other words, fluctuations in the total membership of the Commission were not and could not have been intended. We cannot say that the Commission should have nine members during one legislative term and six members during the next. Constitutional provisions must always have a consistent application. The membership of the Commission is intended to be fixed and not variable and is not dependent upon the existence or non-existence of one or more parties in the Assembly. "`A cardinal rule in dealing with Constitutions is that they should receive a consistent and uniform interpretation, so they shall not be taken to mean one thing at one time and another thing at another time, even though the circumstances may have so changed as to make a different rule after desirable (11 Am. Jur. 659). "It is undisputed of course that the primary purpose of the Convention in giving representation to the minority party in the Electoral Commission was to safeguard the rights of the minority party and to protect their interests, especially when the election of any member of the minority party is protested. The basic philosophy behind the
- 40. constitutional provision wasto enable the minority party to act as a check on the majority in the Electoral Commission, with the members of the Supreme Court as the balancing factor. Inasmuch, however, as there is no minority party represented in the Assembly, the necessity for such a check by the minority party disappears. It is a function that is expected to be exercised by the three Justices of the Supreme Court. "To summarize, considering the plain terms of the constitutional provision in question, the changes that it has undergone since it was first introduced until finally adopted by the convertion, as well as, the considerations that must have inspired the Constitutional Convention in adopting it as it is, I have come to the conclusion that the Electoral Commission should be composed of nine members, three from the Supreme Court and six chosen by the National Assembly to be nominated by the party in power, there being no other party entitled to such nomination.". Pursuant to the foregoing opinion of February 1, 1939, the Electoral Commission was formally organized, with six members of the National Assembly all belonging to the same party and three Justices of the Supreme Court. Constitutional amendments were introduced and duly adopted in 1940, and the Electoral Commission was replaced by an Electoral Tribunal for each house of Congress. It is now provided that "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 of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen by each house, three upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest number of votes therein. The senior Justice in each Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman." (Article VI, Section 11, of the Constitution.). If there was any doubt on the matter, the same was removed by the amendment of 1940 th e framers of which may be assumed to have been fully aware of the one-party composition of the former National Assembly which gave rise to the abovequoted opinion of the Secretary of Justice. When instead of wording the amendment in such a form as to nullify said opinion, Section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution not only did not substantially depart from the original constitutional provision but also positively and expressly ordains that "Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members," the intent has become clear and mandatory that at all times the Electoral Tribunal shall have nine Members regardless of whether or not two parties make up each house of Congress. It is very significant that while the party having the second largest number of votes is allowed to nominate three Members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, it is not required that the nominees should belong to the same party. Considering further that the six Members are chosen by each house, and not by the party or parties, the conclusion is inescapable that party affiliation is neither controlling nor necessary. Under the theory of the petitioners, even if there were sufficient Members belonging to the party having the second largest of votes, the latter may nominate less than three or none at all; and the Chief Justice may similarly designate less than three Justices. If not absurd, would frustrate the purpose of having an ideal number in the composition of the Electoral Tribunal and guarding against the possibility of deadlocks. It would not be accurate to argue that the Members of the Electoral Tribunal other than the Justices of the Supreme Court would naturally vote along purely partisan lines, checked or fiscalized only by the votes of the Justices; otherwise membe rship in the Tribunal may well be limited to the Justices of the Supreme Court and so others who are not Members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. Upon the other hand, he framers of the Constitution-not insensitive to some such argument-still had reposed their faith and confidence in the independence, integrity and uprightness of the Members of each House who are to sit in the Electoral Tribunals and thereby expected them, as does everybody, to decide jointly with the Justices of the Supreme Court election contests exclusively upon their merits. In view of the failure or unwillingness of Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada of the Citizens Party, the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate, to nominate two other Members of the Electoral Tribunal, the Senate was justified, in obedience to the constitutional mandate, to choose-as it did-said two Members. I vote to dismiss the petition. Endencia, J., concurs. LABRADOR, J., dissenting:. I dissent and herewith proceed to explain my reasons therefor.
- 41. The constitutional provision,in pursuance of which Senators Cuenco and Delgado were elected by the Senate members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal is as follows:. "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 of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen by each House, three upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest number of votes therein. The Senior Justice in each Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman." (Section II, Article VI of the Constitution.). I hold that the above provision, just as any other constitutional provision, is mandatory in character and that this character is true not only of the provision that nine members shall compose the tribunal but also that which defines the manner in which the members shall be chosen. Such a holding is in accord with well-settled rules of statutory construction. "As a general proposition, there is greater likelihood that constitutional provisions will be given mandatory effect than is true of any other class of organic law. Indeed, such a construction accords with the generally acknowledged import of constitutional fiat; that its character is such as to require absolute compliance in all cases without exception. And the very principles of our institutions, involving as they do concepts of constitutional supremacy, are such as to form reasonable grounds for a presumption that the framers of a constitution intended that just such efficacy be given to it .." (Sec. 5807, Sutherland Statutory Construction, Vol. 3, p.84.). The majority helds that as Senator Tañada, the only member of the Senate who does not belong to the Nacionalista Party, has refused to exercise the constitutional privilege afforded him to nominate the two other members the Senate may not elect said two other members. And the reason given for this ruling is the presumed intention of the constitutional provision to safeguard the interests of the minority. This holding is subject to the following fundamental objections. In the first Place, it renders nugatory the provision which fixes the membership of the Senate Electoral Tribunal at nine, a provision which is admittedly a mandatory provision. In the second place, it denies to the Senate the power that the constitutional provision expressly grants it, i. e., that of electing the members of the Electoral Tribunal so in effect this right or prerogative is lodged, as a consequence of the refusal of the minority member to nominate, in the hands of said member of the minority, contrary to the constitutional provision. In the third place, it would make the supposedly procedural provision, the process of nomination lodged in the minority party in the Senate, superior to and paramount over the power of election, which is in the whole Senate itself. So by the ruling of the majority, a procedural provision overrides a substantive one and renders nugatory the other more important mandatory provision that the Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members. In the fourth place, the majority decision has by interpretation inserted a provision in the Constitution, which the Constitutional Convention alone had the power to introduce, namely, a proviso to the effect that if the minority fails or refuses to exercise its privilege to nominate all the three members, the membership of the Electoral Tribunal shall thereby be correspondingly reduced. This arrogation of power by us is not justified by any rule of law or reason. I consider the opinion of the Senate that the refusal of Senator Tañada to nominate the two other members must be construed as a waiver of a mere privilege, more in consonance not only with the constitutional provision as a whole, but with the dictates of reason. The above principle (of waiver) furnishes the remedy by which two parts of the constitutional provision, that which fixes membership at nine and that which outlines the procedure in which said membership of nine may be elected, can be reconciled. Well known is the legal principle that provisions which in their application may nullify each other should be reconciled to make them both effective, if the reconciliation can be effected by the application of other legal principles. The reconciliation is brought about in this case by the principle of waiver. While I agree with the majority that it is the duty of this Court to step in, when a constitutional mandate is ignored, to enforce said mandate even as against the other coordinate departments, this is not the occasion for it to do so, for to say the least it does not clearly appear that the form and manner in which the Senate exercised its expressly recognized power to elect its members to the Senate Electoral Tribunal has been clearly violative of the constitutional mandate. _Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä_.
- 42. 1 Casanovas vs.Hord, 8 Phil., 125; Omo vs. Insular Gov't., 11 Phil., 67; Weigall vs. Shuster, 11 Phil., 340; Barrameda vs. Moir, 25 Phil., 44; Hamilton vs. McGirr, 30 Phil., 563; CompaniaGral. deTabacos vs. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 34 Phil., 136; Central Capiz vs. Ramirez, 40 Phil., 883; Concepcion vs. Paredes, 42 Phil 599; McDaniel vs. Apacible, 42 Phil., 749; U. S. vs. Ang Tan Ho, 43 Phil., 1; People vs. Pomar, 46 Phil., 440. Agcaoili vs. Saguitan, 48 Phil., 676; Gov't. vs. Springer, 50 Phil., 259; Gov't. us. Agoncillo, 50 Phil., 348; Gov't. vs. El Hogar Filipino, 50 Phil, 399; Manila Electric vs. Pasay Transp., 57 Phil., 600; Angara vs. Electoral Commission, supra; People vs. Vera, 65 Phil., 56; Vargas vs. Rilloraza, 45 Off. Gaz., 3847; Endencia vs. David, 49 Off.Gaz., A822; Rutter vs. Esteban, 49 Off. Gaz., 1807; Comm. investment vs. Garcia, 49 Off. Gaz., 1801; Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch 137; Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; Hepburn vs. Griswold, 8 Wall.603; Knox vs. Lee, 12 Wall. 457; Civil Rights Cases [U. S. vs. M. Stanley; U. S. vs. M. Ryan, U. S. vs. S. Nichols; U. S. vs. Singleton; Robins on vs. and Charleston Railroad Co.], 109 U. S. 3 Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601; Fairbanks vs. U. S., 181 U. S. 286. 2 Which, insofar as pertinent to the issues in the case at bar, is substantially identical to each of the Electoral Tribunals under the Constitution as amended. 3 Araneta vs. Dinglasan, Barredo vs. Commission on Elections, and Rodriguez vs. Teasurer of the Philippines, 84 Phil., 368, 45 Off. Gaz., 4411, 4457; Nacionalista Party vs. Bautista, 85 Phil., 101, 47 Off.Gaz., 2356; Lacson vs. Romero, 84 Phil., 740, 47 Off. Gaz., 1778; De los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil., 289, 48 Off. Gaz., 1787; Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil., 456, 49 Off.Gaz., 93; JoverLedesma vs. Borra, 93 Phil., 506, 49 Off.Gaz., 2765; Ramos vs. Avelino, 97 Phil., 844, 51 Off.Gaz., 5607. _Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä_ 4 "From the very nature of the American system of government with Constitutions prescribing the jurisdiction and powers of each of the three branches of government, it has devolved on the judiciary to determine whether the acts of the other two departments are in harmony with the fundamental law. All the departments are of the government are unquestionably entitled and compelled to judge of the Constitution for themselves; but, in doing so, they act under the obligations imposed in the instrument, and in the order of time pointed out by it. When the, judiciary has once spoken, if the acts of the other two departments are held to be unauthorized or despotic, in violation of the Constitution or the vested rights of the citizen, they cease to be operative or binding. xxx x xx x xx. "Since the Constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as the other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the court are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands. It is their duty in authorized proceedings to give effect to the existing Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom of such provisions. "In accordance with principles which are basic, the rule is fixed that the duty in a proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the deliberate judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment is directly drawn into question. When it is clear that a statute transgresses the authority vested in the legislature by the Constitution, it is the duty of the courts to declare the ac t unconstitutional cause they cannot shrink from it without violating their oaths of office. This duty of the courts to maintain the Constitution as the fundamental law of the state is imperative and unceasing; and, as Chief Justice Marshal said, whenever a statute is in violation of the fundamental law, the courts must so adjudge and thereby give effect to the Constitution. Any other course would lead to the destruction of the Constitution. Since the question as to the constitutionality of a statute is a judicial matter, the courts will not decline the exercise of jurisdiction upon the suggestion that action might be taken by political agencies in disregard of the judgment of the judicial tribunals." (11 Am. Jur., pp. 712-713, 713-715; emphasis supplied). 5 Rich vs. Board of Canvassers, 59 N. W. 183; State vs. McBride, 29 Am. Dec. 636; Collier vs. Frierson, 24 Ala. 100; State vs. Swift, 69 Ind. 505; State vs. Timme, 11 N.W. 785; Prohibition and Amendment Cases, 24 Kan. 700; Kadderly vs. Portland, 74 Pac. 710; Koehler vs. Hill, 14 N. W. 738; State vs. Brockhart, 84 S. W. 1064; University vs. Melver, 72 N. C. 76; Westinghausen vs. People, 6 N.W. 641; State vs. Powell, 27 South, 927; Bott vs. Wurtz, 43 Atl. 744; Rice vs. Palmer, 96 S. W. 396; State vs. Tooker, 37 Pac. 840. 6 "The procedure or manner of nomination cannot possibly affect the, constitutional mandate that the Assembly is entitled to six in the Electoral Commission. When for lack of a minority representation in the Assembly the power to
- 43. nominate three minoritymembers cannot be exercised, it logically follows that the only party in the Assembly may nominate three others, otherwise the explicit mandate of the Constitution that there shall be six members from the National Assembly would be nullified. "In other words, fluctuations in the total membership of the Commission were not and could have been intended; We cannot say that the Commission should have nine members during one legislative term and six members during the next. Constitutional provisions must always have a consistent application. The membership of the Commission is intended to be fixed and not variable and is not dependent upon the existence or non-existence of one or more parties in the Assembly. `A cardinal rule in dealing with Constitutions is that they should receive a consistent and uniform interpretation, so they shall not be taken to mean one thing at one time and another thing at another time, even though the circumstance may have so changed as to make a different rule seem desirable (11 Am. Jur. 659).'. "It is undisputed of course that the primary purpose of the Convention in giving representation to the minority party in the Electoral Commission was to safeguard the rights of the minority party and to protect their interests, especially when the election of any member of the minority party is protected. The basic philosophy behind the constitutional provision was to enable the minority party to act as a check on the majority of the Electoral Commission, with the members of the Supreme Court as the balancing factor. Inasmuch, however, as there is no minority party represented in the Assembly, the necessity for such a check by the minority party disappears. It is a function that is expected to be exercised by the three Justices of the Supreme Court. "To summarize, considering the plain terms of the constitutional provision in question, the changes that it has undergone since it was first introduced until finally adopted by the Convention, as well as the considerations that must have inspired the Constitutional Convention in adopting it as it is, I have come to the conclusion that the Electoral Commission should be composed of nine members, three from the Supreme Court and six chosen by the National Assembly to be nominated by the party in power, there being no other party entitled to such nomination." Annex A to the Answers pp. 2-3. 6a Since 1939, when said opinion was rendered, the question therein raised has not been taken up or discussed, until the events leading to the case at bar (in February 1956). 6b "Thus, in Suanes vs. Chief Accountant (supra)-in which the respondents maintained that the Electoral Commission formed part of the National Assembly, citing in support thereof the principle of contemporaneous and practical construction-this Court deemed it unnecessary to refute the same in order to adopt the opposite view. 7 Senator Laurel reiterated this view on the floor of the Senate, on February 22. 1956, in the following language:. "And hence this provision that we find in the Constitution, three to represent, in the manner prescribed in the Constitution, the party that received the highest number of votes, meaning the majority party which is the Nacionalista Party now, and three to represent the party receiving the next highest number of votes therein, meaning the minority party, the party receiving the next highest number of votes. But there was a great deal of opinion that it would be better if this political organization, so far as the legislative department is concerned, could be tempered by a sort of a judicial reflection which could be done by drafting three, as to each Electoral Tribunal, from the Supreme Court. And that, I think, was the reason because a great majority of the delegates to the constitutional convention accepted that principle. That is why we have nine members in each electoral tribunal, in the House and in the Senate. And one reason that I remember then and I am speaking from memory, Mr. President, was that it is likely that the three members representing a party would naturally favor the protestants or protestees, and so on. So it would be better that even on that hypothesis or on that supposition it would be better, in case they annul each other because three votes in favor or three votes against, depending on th e party of the protestants or the protestees, that the Supreme Court decide the case because then it would be a judicial decision in reality. Another reason is founded on the theory that the Justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to be beyond influence, although that may not be true. But having reached the highest judicial position of the land, these persons would likely act impartially." (Congressional Record for the Senate Vol. III, p. 376.). 8 When the legislative power was vested in a unicameral body, known as the National Assembly. 9 Upon the substitution of the National Assembly by a bicameral Congress, consisting of the Senate and the House
- 44. of Representatives. 10 SenatorLim said:. "But in the spirit, Your Honor can see very well that those three should belong to the party having the second largest number of votes, precisely, as Your Honor said, to maintain equilibrium because partisan considerations naturally enter into the mind and heart of a senator belonging to a particular party. Although grammatically, I agree with Your Honor, Your Honor can see that the spirit of the provision of the Constitution is clear that the three must come from the party having the highest number of votes and the other three nominated must belong to the party having the second highest number of votes. Your Honor can see the point. If we allow Your Honor to back up your argument that equilibrium should be maintained, because partisan considerations enter when one is with the majority party, and that no party should prevail, Your Honor should also have to consider that the spirit of the Constitution is precisely to obviate that to the extent that the only three can be nominated from the party having the largest number of votes and three from the party having the second largest number of votes." (Congressional Record of the Senate, Vol. Ill, p, 337; emphasis supplied.). _Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä_. The statement of Senator Sabido was:. "..the purpose of the creation of the Electoral Tribunal and of its composition is to maintain a balance between the two parties and make the members of the Supreme Court the controlling power so to speak of the Electoral Tribunal or hold the balance of power. That is the ideal situation.". xxx x xx x xx. ".. I said that the ideal composition in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution is that those participating in the electoral tribunal shall belong to the members of the party who are before the electoral tribunal either as protestants or protestees, in order to insure impartiality in the proceeding and justice in the decision that may be finally rendered." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, pp. 349, 352; emphasis supplied.). _Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä__Ä_. Senator Cea declared:. "..the original purpose of the Constitution is to nominate only members of the two major parties in the Senate in the Electoral Tribunal." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, p. 350; emphasis supplied.). The words of Senator Paredes were:. "..what was intended in the creation of the electoral tribunal was to create a sort of collegiate court composed of nine members three of them belonging to the party having largest number of votes, and three from, the party having the second largest number of votes so that these members my represent the party, and the members of said party who will sit before the electoral tribunal as protestees. For when it comes to a party, Mr. President, there is ground to believe that decisions will be made along party lines." (Congressional Record for the Senate, Vol. III, p. 351; emphasis supplied.). 11 The need of adopting this view is demanded, not only by the factors already adverted to, but, also, by the fact that constitutional provisions, unlike statutory enactments, are presumed to be mandatory, "unless the contrary is unmistakably manifest." The pertinent rule of statutory construction is set forth in the American Jurisprudence as follows:. "In the interpretation of Constitutions, questions frequently arise as to whether particular sections are mandatory or directory. The courts usually hesitate to declare that a constitutional provision is directory merely in view of the tendency of the legislature to disregard provisions which are not said to be mandatory. Accordingly, it is the general rule to regard constitutional provisions as mandatory, and not to leave any direction to the will of a legislature to obey or to disregard them. This presumption as to mandatory quality is usually followed unless it is unmistakably
- 45. manifest that theprovisions are intended to be merely directory. The analogous rules distinguishing mandatory and directory statutes are of little value in this connection and are rarely applied in passing upon the provisions of a Constitution. "So strong is the inclination in favor of giving obligatory force to the terms of the organic law that it has even been said that neither by the courts nor by any other department of the government may any provision of the Constitution be regarded as merely directory, but that each and everyone of its provisions should be treated as imperative and mandatory, without reference to the rules and distinguishing between the directory and the mandatory statutes." (II Am. Jur. 686-687; emphasis supplied.). 12 Which admittedly, has the second largest number of votes in the Senate. 13 In Angara vs. Electoral Commission (supra, 169) Senator, then Justice, Laurel, speaking for this Court, recalled that:. "In the same session of December 4, 1934, Delegate Cruz (C.) sought to amend the draft by reducing the representation of the minority party and the Supreme Court in the Electoral Commission to two members each, so as to accord more representation to the majority party. The Convention rejected this amendment by a vote of seventy-six (76) against forty-six (46), thus maintaining the non-partisan character of the commission."(emphasis supplied.). Needless to say, what the Constitutional Convention thus precluded from being done by direct action or grant of authority in the Charter of our Republic should not receive judicial sanction, when done by resolution of one House of Congress, a mere creature of said charter. 14 Namely, the other two (2) Justices of the Supreme Court and Senators Laurel, Lopez and Primicias, or a total of six (6) members of the Tribunal. G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents. G.R. No. L-44684. October 12,1976 VICENTE M. GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-44714. October 12,1976 RAUL M. GONZALES, RAUL T. GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON SELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents. MARTIN, J,: The capital question raised in these prohibition suits with preliminary injunction relates to the power of the incumbent President of the Philippines to propose amendments to the present Constitution in the absence of the interim National Assembly which has not been convened. On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the I .assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers.1 Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the President issued another related decree, Presidential Decree No. 1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring the provisions of presidential Decree No. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the
- 46. national referendum-plebiscite ofOctober 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed Section 4, of Presidential Decree No. 991, the full text of which (Section 4) is quoted in the footnote below. 2 On the same date of September 22, 1976, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 1033, stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16. The questions ask, to wit: (1) Do you want martial law to be continued? (2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued, do you approve the following amendments to the Constitution? For the purpose of the second question, the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite within the contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: 1. There shall be, in lieu of the interim National Assembly, an interim BatasangPambansa. Members of the interim BatasangPambansa which shall not be more than 120, unless otherwise provided by law, shall include the incumbent President of the Philippines, representatives elected from the different regions of the nation, those who shall not be less than eighteen years of age elected by their respective sectors, and those chosen by the incumbent President from the members of the Cabinet. Regional representatives shall be apportioned among the regions in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio while the sectors shall be determined by law. The number of representatives from each region or sector and the, manner of their election shall be prescribed and regulated by law. 2. The interim BatasangPambansa shall have the same powers and its members shall have the same functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the members thereof. However, it shall not exercise the power provided in Article VIII, Section 14(l) of the Constitution. 3. The incumbent President of the Philippines shall, within 30 days from the election and selection of the members, convene the interim BatasangPambansa and preside over its sessions until the Speaker shall have been elected. The incumbent President of the Philippines shall be the Prime Minister and he shall continue to exercise all his powers even after the interim BatasangPambansa is organized and ready to discharge its functions and likewise he shall continue to exercise his powers and prerogatives under the nineteen hundred and thirty five. Constitution and the powers vested in the President and the Prime Minister under this Constitution. 4. The President (Prime Minister) and his Cabinet shall exercise all the powers and functions, and discharge the responsibilities of the regular President (Prime Minister) and his Cabinet, and shall be subject only to such disqualifications as the President (Prime Minister) may prescribe. The President (Prime Minister) if he so desires may appoint a Deputy Prime Minister or as many Deputy Prime Ministers as he may deem necessary. 5. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until martial law shall have been lifted. 6. Whenever in the judgment of the President (Prime Minister), there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim BatasangPambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land. 7. The barangays and sanggunians shall continue as presently constituted but their functions, powers, and composition may be altered by law. Referenda conducted thru the barangays and under the Supervision of the Commission on Elections may be called
- 47. at any timethe government deems it necessary to ascertain the will of the people regarding any important matter whether of national or local interest. 8. All provisions of this Constitution not inconsistent with any of these amendments shall continue in full force and effect. 9. These amendments shall take effect after the incumbent President shall have proclaimed that they have been ratified by I majority of the votes cast in the referendum-plebiscite." The Commission on Elections was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the October 1976 National Referendum-Plebiscite. On September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, father and son, commenced L-44640 for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum- Plebiscite scheduled on October 16, 1976. Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. As a consequence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis. On October 5, 1976, the Solicitor General filed the comment for respondent Commission on Elections, The Solicitor General principally maintains that petitioners have no standing to sue; the issue raised is political in nature, beyond judicial cognizance of this Court; at this state of the transition period, only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization. On September 30, 1976, another action for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, docketed as L-44684, was instituted by VICENTE M. GUZMAN, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, asserting that the power to propose amendments to, or revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly conferred on the interim National Assembly under Section 16, Article XVII of the Constitution.3 Still another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was filed on October 5, 1976 by RAUL M. GONZALES, his son RAUL, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, docketed as L- 44714, to restrain the implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite of October 16. These last petitioners argue that even granting him legislative powers under Martial Law, the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution; a referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973; the submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity; to lift Martial Law, the President need not consult the people via referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to vote would amount to an amendment of the Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18 years of age and above. We find the petitions in the three entitled cases to be devoid of merit. I Justiciability of question raised. 1. As a preliminary resolution, We rule that the petitioners in L-44640 (Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad) possess locus standi to challenge the constitutional premise of Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033. It is now an ancient rule that the valid source of a stature Presidential Decrees are of such nature-may be contested by one who will sustain a direct injuries as a in result of its enforcement. At the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds may be enjoined, upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds. 4 The breadth of Presidential Decree No. 991 carries all appropriation of Five Million Pesos for the effective
- 48. implementation of itspurposes. 5 Presidential Decree No. 1031 appropriates the sum of Eight Million Pesos to carry out its provisions. 6 The interest of the aforenamed petitioners as taxpayers in the lawful expenditure of these amounts of public money sufficiently clothes them with that personality to litigate the validity of the Decrees appropriating said funds. Moreover, as regards taxpayer's suits, this Court enjoys that open discretion to entertain the same or not. 7 For the present case, We deem it sound to exercise that discretion affirmatively so that the authority upon which the disputed Decrees are predicated may be inquired into. 2. The Solicitor General would consider the question at bar as a pure political one, lying outside the domain of judicial review. We disagree. The amending process both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question. 8 This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the of normally exercised by the legislature, is seriously doubted. Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power to propose amendments o the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of transition (See. 15, Transitory provisions). After that period, and the regular National Assembly in its active session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2 of Art. XVI, 1973 constitution). The normal course has not been followed. Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly the incumbent President undertook the proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed amendments thru Presidential Decree 1033 to the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity regularity of the procedure for amendments, written in lambent words in the very Constitution sought to be amended, raises a contestable issue. The implementing Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which commonly purport to have the force and effect of legislation are assailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one, within the competence of this Court to pass upon. Section 2 (2), Article X of the new Constitution provides: "All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law may shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. ..." The Supreme Court has the last word in the construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also of the Constitution itself The amending, like all other powers organized in the Constitution, is in form a delegated and hence a limited power, so that the Supreme Court is vested with that authorities to determine whether that power has been discharged within its limits. Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, of the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. What is in the heels of the Court is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. Whether the amending process confers on the President that power to propose amendments is therefore a downright justiciable question. Should the contrary be found, the actuation of the President would merely be a brutumfulmen. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not. 10 We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his theory of non-justiciability, that the question of the President's authority to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of the proposal to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the A clear Descartes fallacy of vicious circle. Is it not that the people themselves, by their sovereign act, provided for the authority and procedure for the amending process when they ratified the present Constitution in 1973? Whether, therefore, the constitutional provision has been followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves of course who exercise no power of judicial but by the Supreme Court in whom the people themselves vested that power, a power which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have been observed or not. And, this inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i.e., before the submission to and ratification by the people. Indeed, the precedents evolved by the Court or, prior constitutional cases underline the preference of the Court's majority to treat such issue of Presidential role in the amending process as one of non-political impression. In the Plebiscite Cases, 11the contention of the Solicitor General that the issue on the legality of Presidential Decree No. 73 "submitting to the Pilipino people (on January 15, 1973) for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention and appropriating fund s therefore "is a political one, was rejected and the Court unanimously considered the issue as justiciable in nature. Subsequently in the Ratification Cases 12 involving the issue of whether or not the validity of Presidential Proclamation No. 1102.announcing the Ratification by the Filipino people of the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention," partakes of the nature of a political question, the affirmative stand of' the Solicitor General was dismissed, the Court ruled that the question raised is justiciable. Chief Justice Concepcion, expressing the majority view, said, Thus, in the aforementioned plebiscite cases, We rejected the theory of the respondents therein that the
- 49. question whether PresidentialDecree No. 73 calling a plebiscite to be held on January 15, 1973, for the ratification or rejection of the proposed new Constitution, was valid or not, was not a proper subject of judicial inquiry because, they claimed, it partook of a political nature, and We unanimously declared that the issue was a justiciable one. With Identical unanimity. We overruled the respondent's contention in the 1971 habeas corpus cases, questioning Our authority to determine the constitutional sufficiency of the factual bases of the Presidential proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on August 21, 1971, despite the opposite view taken by this Court in Barcelon vs. Baker and Montenegro vs. Castaneda, insofar as it adhered to the former case, which view We, accordingly, abandoned and refused to apply. For the same reason, We did not apply and expressly modified, in Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, the political-question theory adopted in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito." 13The return to Barcelon vs. Baker and Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, urged by the Solicitor General, was decisively refused by the Court. Chief Justice Concepcion continued: "The reasons adduced in support thereof are, however, substantially the same as those given in support on the political question theory advanced in said habeas corpus and plebiscite cases, which were carefully considered by this Court and found by it to be legally unsound and constitutionally untenable. As a consequence. Our decisions in the aforementioned habeas corpus cases partakes of the nature and effect of a stare decisis which gained added weight by its virtual reiteration." II The amending process as laid out in the new Constitution. 1. Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution on Amendments ordains: SECTION 1. (1) Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or by a constitutional convention. (2) The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention or, by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate in an election. SECTION 2. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision. In the present period of transition, the interim National Assembly instituted in the Transitory Provisions is conferred with that amending power. Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions reads: SECTION 15. The interim National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime Minister, may, by a majority vote of all its Members, propose amendments to this Constitution. Such amendments shall take effect when ratified in accordance with Article Sixteen hereof. There are, therefore, two periods contemplated in the constitutional life of the nation, i.e., period of normalcy and period of transition. In times of normally, the amending process may be initiated by the proposals of the (1) regular National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or (2) by a Constitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the National Assembly. However the calling of a Constitutional Convention may be submitted to the electorate in an election voted upon by a majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly. In times of transition, amendments may be proposed by a majority vote of all the Members of the National Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime Minister,. 2. This Court in Aquino v. COMELEC," had already settled that the incumbent President is vested with that prerogative of discretion as to when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly. Speaking for the majority opinion in that case, Justice Makasiar said: "The Constitutional Convention intended to leave to the President the determination of the time when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly, consistent with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the country." Concurring, Justice Fernandez, himself a member of that Constitutional Convention, revealed: "(W)hen the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted on the Transitory Provisions, they were aware of the fact that under the same, the incumbent President was given the discretion as to when he could convene the interim National Assembly; it was so stated plainly by the sponsor, Delegate Yaneza; as a matter of fact, the proposal that it be convened 'immediately', made by Delegate Pimentel (V) was rejected. The President's decision to defer the convening of the interim National Assembly soon found
- 50. support from thepeople themselves. In the plebiscite of January 10-15, 1973, at which the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was submitted, the people voted against the convening of the interim National Assembly. In the referendum of July 24, 1973, the Citizens Assemblies ("bagangays") reiterated their sovereign will to withhold the convening of the interim National Assembly. Again, in the referendum of February 27, 1975, the proposed question of whether the interim National Assembly shall be initially convened was eliminated, because some of the members of Congress and delegates of the Constitutional Convention, who were deemed automatically members of the I interim National Assembly, were against its inclusion since in that referendum of January, 1973, the people had already resolved against it. 3. In sensustrictiore, when the legislative arm of the state undertakes the proposals of amendment to a Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of lawmaking. lt is not legislating when engaged in the amending process.16 Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed upon it by the fundamental charter itself. In the Philippines, that power is provided for in Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution (for the regular National Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for the National Assembly). While ordinarily it is the business of the legislating body to legislate for the nation by virtue of constitutional conferment amending of the Constitution is not legislative in character. In political science a distinction is made between constitutional content of an organic character and that of a legislative character'. The distinction, however, is one of policy, not of law. 17Such being the case, approval of the President of any proposed amendment is a misnomer 18The prerogative of the President to approve or disapprove applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation. The President has nothing to do with proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution. 19 III Concentration of Powers in the President during crisis government. 1. In general, the governmental powers in crisis government the Philippines is a crisis government today are more or less concentrated in the President. 20According to Rossiter, "(t)he concentration of government power in a democracy faced by an emergency is a corrective to the crisis inefficiencies inherent in the doctrine of the separation of powers. In most free states it has generally been regarded as imperative that the total power of the government be parceled out among three mutually independent branches executive, legislature, and judiciary. It is believed to be destructive of constitutionalism if any one branch should exercise any two or more types of power, and certainly a total disregard of the separation of powers is, as Madison wrote in the Federalist, No. 47, 'the very definition of tyranny.' In normal times the separation of powers forms a distinct obstruction to arbitrary governmental action. By this same token, in abnormal times it may form an insurmountable barrier to a decisive emergency action in behalf of the state and its independent existence. There are moments in the life of any government when all powers must work together in unanimity of purpose and action, even if this means the temporary union of executive, legislative, and judicial power in the hands of one man. The more complete the separation of powers in a constitutional system, the more difficult and yet the more necessary will be their fusion in time of crisis. This is evident in a comparison of the crisis potentialities of the cabinet and presidential systems of government. In the former the all-important harmony of legislature and executive is taken for granted; in the latter it is neither guaranteed nor to be to confidently expected. As a result, cabinet is more easily established and more trustworthy than presidential dictatorship. The power of the state in crisis must not only be concentrated and expanded; it must also be freed from the normal system of constitutional and legal limitations. 21John Locke, on the other hand, claims for the executive in its own right a broad discretion capable even of setting aside the ordinary laws in the meeting of special exigencies for which the legislative power had not provided. 22The rationale behind such broad emergency powers of the Executive is the release of the government from "the paralysis of constitutional restrains" so that the crisis may be ended and normal times restored. 2. The presidential exercise of legislative powers in time of martial law is now a conceded valid at. That sun clear authority of the President is saddled on Section 3 (pars. 1 and 2) of the Transitory Provisions, thus: 23 The incumbent President of the Philippines shall initially convene the interim National Assembly and shall preside over its sessions until the interim Speaker shall have been elected. He shall continue to exercise his powers and prerogatives under the nineteen hundred and thirty-five Constitution and the powers vested in the President and
- 51. the Prime Ministerunder this Constitution until the calls upon the interim National Assembly to elect the interim President and the interim Prime Minister, who shall then exercise their respective powers vested by this Constitution. All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land, and shall remain valid, binding, and effective even after lifting of martial law or the ratification of this Constitution, unless modified, revoked, or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the incumbent President, or unless expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by the regular National Assembly. "It is unthinkable," said Justice Fernandez, a 1971 Constitutional Convention delegate, "that the Constitutional Convention, while giving to the President the discretion when to call the interim National Assembly to session, and knowing that it may not be convened soon, would create a vacuum in the exercise of legislative powers. Otherwise, with no one to exercise the lawmaking powers, there would be paralyzation of the entire governmental machinery." 24Paraphrasing Rossiter, this is an extremely important factor in any constitutional dictatorship which extends over a period of time. The separation of executive and legislature ordained in the Constitution presents a distinct obstruction to efficient crisis government. The steady increase in executive power is not too much a cause for as the steady increase in the magnitude and complexity of the problems the President has been called upon by the Filipino people to solve in their behalf, which involve rebellion, subversion, secession, recession, inflation, and economic crisis-a crisis greater than war. In short, while conventional constitutional law just confines the President's power as Commander-in-Chief to the direction of the operation of the national forces, yet the facts of our political, social, and economic disturbances had convincingly shown that in meeting the same, indefinite power should be attributed to tile President to take emergency measures 25 IV Authority of the incumbent President t to propose amendments to the Constitution. 1. As earlier pointed out, the power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly during the transition period. However, the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the judgment of the incumbent President. And, in the exercise of that judgment, the President opted to defer convening of that body in utter recognition of the people's preference. Likewise, in the period of transition, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by the President (See. 15 of the Transitory Provisions). Again, harking to the dictates of the sovereign will, the President decided not to call the interim National Assembly. Would it then be within the bounds of the Constitution and of law for the President to assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-a-vis his assumption of that body's legislative functions? The answer is yes. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. This, of course, is not to say that the President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature normally constituted by the legislature. Rather, with the interim National Assembly not convened and only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation, the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution. Parenthetically, by its very constitution, the Supreme Court possesses no capacity to propose amendments without constitutional infractions. For the President to shy away from that actuality and decline to undertake the amending process would leave the governmental machineries at a stalemate or create in the powers of the State a destructive vacuum, thereby impeding the objective of a crisis government "to end the crisis and restore normal times." In these parlous times, that Presidential initiative to reduce into concrete forms the constant voices of the people reigns supreme. After all, constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions, like the President now, are mere agents of the people .26 2. The President's action is not a unilateral move. As early as the referendums of January 1973 and February 1975, the people had already rejected the calling of the interim National Assembly. The LupongTagapagpaganap of the KatipunanngmgaSanggunian, the PambansangKatipunanngmga Barangay, and the PambansangKatipunanngmga Barangay, representing 42,000 barangays, about the same number of Kabataang
- 52. Barangay organizations, Sangguniansin 1,458 municipalities, 72 provinces, 3 sub-provinces, and 60 cities had informed the President that the prevailing sentiment of the people is for the abolition of the interim National Assembly. Other issues concerned the lifting of martial law and amendments to the Constitution .27 The national organizations of Sangguniang Bayan presently proposed to settle the issues of martial law, the interim Assembly, its replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the President of its present powers in a referendum to be held on October 16 . 28The Batasang Bayan (legislative council) created under Presidential Decree 995 of September 10, 1976, composed of 19 cabinet members, 9 officials with cabinet rank, 91 members of the LupongTagapagpaganap (executive committee) of the KatipunanngmgaSangguniang Bayan voted in session to submit directly to the people in a plebiscite on October 16, the previously quoted proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the issue of martial law .29 Similarly, the "barangays" and the "sanggunians" endorsed to the President the submission of the proposed amendments to the people on October 16. All the foregoing led the President to initiate the proposal of amendments to the Constitution and the subsequent issuance of Presidential Decree No, 1033 on September 22, 1976 submitting the questions (proposed amendments) to the people in the National Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. V The People is Sovereign 1. Unlike in a federal state, the location of sovereignty in a unitary state is easily seen. In the Philippines, a republican and unitary state, sovereignty "resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them .30In its fourth meaning, Savigny would treat people as "that particular organized assembly of individuals in which, according to the Constitution, the highest power exists." 31This is the concept of popular sovereignty. It means that the constitutional legislator, namely the people, is sovereign 32 In consequence, the people may thus write into the Constitution their convictions on any subject they choose in the absence of express constitutional prohibition. 33This is because, as Holmes said, the Constitution "is an experiment, as all life is all experiment." 34 "The necessities of orderly government," wrote Rottschaefer, "do not require that one generation should be permitted to permanently fetter all future generations." A constitution is based, therefore, upon a self-limiting decision of the people when they adopt it. 35 2. The October 16 referendum-plebiscite is a resounding call to the people to exercise their sovereign power as constitutional legislator. The proposed amendments, as earlier discussed, proceed not from the thinking of a single man. Rather, they are the collated thoughts of the sovereign will reduced only into enabling forms by the authority who can presently exercise the powers of the government. In equal vein, the submission of those proposed amendments and the question of martial law in a referendum-plebiscite expresses but the option of the people themselves implemented only by the authority of the President. Indeed, it may well be said that the amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to initiate the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body. VI Referendum-Plebiscite not rendered nugatory by the participation of the 15-year olds. 1. October 16 is in parts a referendum and a plebiscite. The question - (1) Do you want martial law to be continued? - is a referendum question, wherein the 15-year olds may participate. This was prompted by the desire of the Government to reach the larger mas of the people so that their true pulse may be felt to guide the President in pursuing his program for a New Order. For the succeeding question on the proposed amendments, only those of voting age of 18 years may participate. This is the plebiscite aspect, as contemplated in Section 2, Article XVI of the new Constitution. 36On this second question, it would only be the votes of those 18 years old and above which will have valid bearing on the results. The fact that the voting populace are simultaneously asked to answer the referendum question and the plebiscite question does not infirm the referendum-plebiscite. There is nothing objectionable in consulting the people on a given issue, which is of current one and submitting to them for ratification of proposed constitutional amendments. The fear of commingled votes (15-year olds and 18-year olds above) is readily dispelled by the provision of two ballot boxes for every barangay center, one containing the ballots
- 53. of voters fifteenyears of age and under eighteen, and another containing the ballots of voters eighteen years of age and above. 37The ballots in the ballot box for voters fifteen years of age and under eighteen shall be counted ahead of the ballots of voters eighteen years and above contained in another ballot box. And, the results of the referendum-plebiscite shall be separately prepared for the age groupings, i.e., ballots contained in each of the two boxes. 38 2. It is apt to distinguish here between a "referendum" and a "plebiscite." A "referendum" is merely consultative in character. It is simply a means of assessing public reaction to the given issues submitted to the people foe their consideration, the calling of which is derived from or within the totality of the executive power of the President. 39 It is participated in by all citizens from the age of fifteen, regardless of whether or not they are illiterates, feeble- minded, or ex- convicts . 40A "plebiscite," on the other hand, involves the constituent act of those "citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are eighteen years of age or over, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election Literacy, property or any other substantive requirement is not imposed. It is generally associated with the amending process of the Constitution, more particularly, the ratification aspect. VII 1. There appeals to be no valid basis for the claim that the regime of martial law stultifies in main the freedom to dissent. That speaks of a bygone fear. The martial law regime which, in the observation of Justice Fernando, 41is impressed with a mild character recorded no State imposition for a muffled voice. To be sure, there are restraints of the individual liberty, but on certain grounds no total suppression of that liberty is aimed at. The for the referendum- plebiscite on October 16 recognizes all the embracing freedoms of expression and assembly The President himself had announced that he would not countenance any suppression of dissenting views on the issues, as he is not interested in winning a "yes" or "no" vote, but on the genuine sentiment of the people on the issues at hand. 42Thus, the dissenters soon found their way to the public forums, voicing out loud and clear their adverse views on the proposed amendments and even (in the valid ratification of the 1973 Constitution, which is already a settled matter. 43Even government employees have been held by the Civil Service Commission free to participate in public discussion and even campaign for their stand on the referendum-plebiscite issues. 44 VIII Time for deliberation is not short. 1. The period from September 21 to October 16 or a period of 3 weeks is not too short for free debates or discussions on the referendum-plebiscite issues. The questions are not new. They are the issues of the day. The people have been living with them since the proclamation of martial law four years ago. The referendums of 1973 and 1975 carried the same issue of martial law. That notwithstanding, the contested brief period for discussion is not without counterparts in previous plebiscites for constitutional amendments. Justice Makasiar, in the Referendum Case, recalls: "Under the old Society, 15 days were allotted for the publication in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette of the women's suffrage amendment to the Constitution before the scheduled plebiscite on April 30, 1937 (Com. Act No. 34). The constitutional amendment to append as ordinance the complicated Tydings-Kocialskowski was published in only three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette for 10 days prior to the scheduled plebiscite (Com. Act 492). For the 1940 Constitutional amendments providing for the bicameral Congress, the reelection of the President and Vice President, and the creation of the Commission on Elections, 20 days of publication in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette was fixed (Com Act No. 517). And the Parity Amendment, an involved constitutional amendment affecting the economy as well as the independence of the Republic was publicized in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette for 20 days prior to the plebiscite (Rep. Act No. 73)." 45 2. It is worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date when the plebiscite shall be held, but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision." In Coleman v. Miller, 46the United States Supreme court held that this matter of submission involves "an appraisal of a great variety of relevant conditions, political, social and economic," which "are essentially political and not justiciable." The constituent body or in the instant cases, the President, may fix the time within which the people may act. This is because proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts,
- 54. but as succeedingsteps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time; second, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed, they are to be considered and disposed of presently, and third, ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people, hence, it must be done contemporaneously. 47In the words of Jameson, "(a)n alteration of the Constitution proposed today has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of today, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist. it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by proper body IN RESUME The three issues are 1. Is the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos. 991, 1031 and 1033 political or justiciable? 2. During the present stage of the transition period, and under, the environmental circumstances now obtaining, does the President possess power to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as set up the required machinery and prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the people? 3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and proper submission? Upon the first issue, Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro and Associate Justices Enrique M. Fernando, Claudio Teehankee, Antonio P. Barredo, Cecilia Munoz Palma, Hermogenes Concepcion Jr. and Ruperto G. Martin are of the view that the question posed is justiciable, while Associate Justices Felix V. Makasiar, Felix Q. Antonio and Ramon C. Aquino hold the view that the question is political. Upon the second issue, Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Martin voted in the affirmative, while Associate Justices Teehankee and Munoz Palma voted in the negative. Associate Justice Fernando, conformably to his concurring and dissenting opinion in Aquino vs. Enrile (59 SCRA 183), specifically dissents from the proposition that there is concentration of powers in the Executive during periods of crisis, thus raising serious doubts as to the power of the President to propose amendments. Upon the third issue, Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Martin are of the view that there is a sufficient and proper submission of the proposed amendments for ratification by the people. Associate Justices Barredo and Makasiar expressed the hope, however that the period of time may be extended. Associate Justices Fernando, Makasiar and Antonio are of the view that the question is political and therefore beyond the competence and cognizance of this Court, Associate Justice Fernando adheres to his concurrence in the opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion in Gonzales vs. COMELEC (21 SCRA 774).Associate Justices Teehankee and MUNOZ Palma hold that prescinding from the President's lack of authority to exercise the constituent power to propose the amendments, etc., as above stated, there is no fair and proper submission with sufficient information and time to assure intelligent consent or rejection under the standards set by this Court in the controlling cases of Gonzales, supra, and Tolentino vs. COMELEC (41 SCRA 702). Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Martin voted to dismiss the three petitions at bar. For reasons as expressed in his separate opinion, Associate Justice Fernando concurs in the result. Associate Justices Teehankee and Munoz Palma voted to grant the petitions. ACCORDINGLY, the vote being 8 to 2 to dismiss, the said petitions are hereby dismissed. This decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989 REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner, vs. REP. LUIS C. SINGSON and HON. RAOUL V. VICTORINO IN THE LATTER'S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, respondent.
- 55. CRUZ, J.: After thecongressional elections of May 11, 1987, the House of Representatives proportionally apportioned its twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments among the several political parties represented in that chamber, including the LakasngBansa, the PDP-Laban, the NP-Unido, the Liberal Party, and the KBL, in accordance with Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. Petitioner Raul A. Daza was among those chosen and was listed as a representative of the Liberal Party. 1 On September 16, 1988, the Laban ngDemokratikong Pilipino was reorganized, resulting in a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Twenty four members of the Liberal Party formally resigned from that party and joined the LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 and correspondingly reducing their former party to only 17 members. 2 On the basis of this development, the House of Representatives revised its representation in the Commission on Appointments by withdrawing the seat occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the newly -formed LDP. On December 5, 1988, the chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the original members except the petitioner and including therein respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the LDP. 3 The petitioner came to this Court on January 13, 1989, to challenge his removal from the Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the respondent. Acting initially on his petition for prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction, we issued a temporary restraining order that same day to prevent both the petitioner and the respondent from serving in the Commission on Appointments. 4 Briefly stated, the contention of the petitioner is that he cannot be removed from the Commission on Appointments because his election thereto is permanent under the doctrine announced in Cunanan v. Tan. 5 His claim is that the reorganization of the House representation 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 attained political stability. For his part, the respondent argues that the question raised by the petitioner is political in nature and so beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. He also maintains that he has been improperly impleaded, the real party respondent being the House of Representatives which changed its representation in the Commission on Appointments and removed the petitioner. Finally, he stresses that nowhere in the Constitution is it required that the political party be registered to be entitled to proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments. In addition to the pleadings filed by the parties, a Comment was submitted by the Solicitor General as amicus curiae in compliance with an order from the Court. At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution providing as follows: 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 and parties 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. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members. Ruling first on the jurisdictional issue, we hold that, contrary to the respondent's assertion, the Court has the competence to act on the matter at bar. Our finding is that what is before us is not a discretionary act of the House of Representatives that may not be reviewed by us because it is political in nature. What is involved here is the legality, not the wisdom, of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments. That is not a political question because, as Chief Justice Concepcion explained in Tanada v. Cuenco. 6 ... the term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, ... it refers "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
- 56. In the aforementionedcase, the Court was asked by the petitioners therein to annul the election of two members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal of that chamber, on the ground that they had not been validly nominated. The Senate then consisted of 23 members from the Nacionalista Party and the petitioner as the lone member of the Citizens Party. Senator Lorenzo M. Tanada nominated only himself as the minority representative in the Tribunal, whereupon the majority elected Senators Mariano J. Cuenco. and Francisco Delgad o, from its own ranks, to complete the nine-man composition of the Tribunal as provided for in the 1935 Constitution. The petitioner came to this Court, contending that under Article VI, Section 11, of that Charter, the six legislative members of the Tribu nal were to be chosen by the Senate, "three upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest number of votes therein." As the majority party in the Senate, the Nacionalista Party could nominate only three members and could not also fill the other two seats pertaining to the minority. By way of special and affirmative defenses, the respondents contended inter alia that the subject of the petition was an internal matter that only the Senate could resolve. The Court rejected this argument, holding that what was involved was not the wisdom of the Senate in choosing the respondents but the legality of the choice in light of the requirement of the Constitution. The petitioners were questioning the manner of filling the Tribunal, not the discretion of the Senate in doing so. The Court held that this was a justiciable and not a political question, thus: Such is not the nature of the question for determination in the present case. Here, we are called upon to decide whether the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado by the Senate, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, upon nomination by Senator Primicias -member and spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate-behalf of its Committee on Rules, contravenes the constitutional mandate that said members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal shall be chosen "upon nomination ... of the party having the second largest number of votes" in the Senate and hence, is null and void. The Senate is not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in the choice of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional limitations which are claimed to be mandatory in nature. It is clearly within the legitimate province of the judicial department to pass upon the validity of the proceeding in connection therewith. ... whether an election of public officers has been in accordance with law is for the judiciary. Moreover, where the legislative department has by statute prescribed election procedure in a given situation, the judiciary may determine whether a particular election has been in conformity with such statute, and particularly, whether such statute has been applied in a way to deny or transgress on constitutional or statutory rights ...' (1 6 C.J.S., 439; emphasis supplied) It is, therefore, our opinion that we have, not only jurisdiction but also the duty, to consider and determine the principal issue raised by the parties herein." Although not specifically discussed, the same disposition was made in Cunanan v. Tan as it likewise involved the manner or legality of the organization of the Commission on Appointments, not the wisdom or discretion of the House in the choice of its representatives. In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides: Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 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 respondent's contention that he has been improperly impleaded is even less persuasive. While he may be technically correct in arguing that it is not he who caused the petitioner's removal, we feel that this objection is also not an insuperable obstacle to the resolution of this controversy. We may, for one thing, treat this proceeding as a petition for quo warranto as the petitioner is actually questioning the respondent's right to sit as a member of the Commission on Appointments. For another, we have held as early as in the Emergency Powers Cases 7 that where
- 57. serious constitutional questionsare involved, "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure." The same policy has since then been consistently followed by the Court, as in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 8 where we held through Chief Justice Fernando: In the course of the deliberations, a serious procedural objection was raised by five members of the Court. It is their view that respondent Commission on Elections not being sought to be restrained from performing any specific act, this suit cannot be characterized as other than a mere request for an advisory opinion. Such a view, from the remedial law standpoint, has much to recommend it. Nonetheless, a majority would affirm the original stand that under the circumstances, it could still rightfully be treated as a petition for prohibition. The language of justice Laurel fits the case: "All await the decision of this Court on the constitutional question. Considering, therefore, the importance which the instant case has assumed and to prevent multiplicity of suits, strong reasons of public policy demand that [its] constitutionality ... be now resolved.' It may likewise be added that the exceptional character of the situation that confronts us, the paramount public interest, and the undeniable necessity for ruling, the national elections being barely six months away, reinforce our stand. It would appear undeniable, therefore, that before us is an appropriate invocation of our jurisdiction to prevent the enforcement of an alleged unconstitutional statute. We are left with no choice then; we must act on the matter. Coming now to the more crucial question, the Court notes that both the petitioner and the respondent are invoking the case of Cunanan v. Tan to support their respective positions. It is best, therefore, to make a quick review of that case for a proper disposition of this one. In the election for the House of Representatives held in 1961, 72 seats were won by the Nacionalista Party, 29 by the Liberal Party and 1 by an independent. Accordingly, the representation of the chamber in the Commission on Appointments was apportioned to 8 members from the Nacionalista Party and 4 from the Liberal Party. Subsequently, 25 members of the Nacionalista Party, professing discontent over the House leadership, made common cause with the Liberal Party and formed what was called the Allied Majority to install a new Speaker and reorganize the chamber. Included in this reorganization was the House representation in the Commission on appointments where three of the Nacionalista congressmen originally chosen were displaced by three of their party colleagues who had joined the Allied Majority. Petitioner Carlos Cunanan's ad interim appointment as Deputy Administrator of the Reforestration Administration was rejected by the Commission on Appointments as thus reorganized and respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was thereafter designated in his place. Cunanan then came to this Court, contending that the rejection of his appointment was null and void because the Commission itself was invalidly constituted. The Court agreed. It noted that the Allied Majority was a merely temporary combination as the Nacionalista defectors had not disaffiliated from their party and permanently joined the new political group. Officially, they were still members of the Nacionalista Party. The reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was invalid because it was not based on the proportional representation of the political parties in the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. The Court held: ... In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if du to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the formation of the so-called "Allied Majority," does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise the Commission on Appointments may have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission on Appointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress. The petitioner vigorously argues that the LDP is not the permanent political party contemplated in the Constitution because it has not been registered in accordance with Article IX-B, Section 2(5), in relation to the other provisions of the Constitution. He stresses that the so-called party has not yet achieved stability and suggests it might be no different from several other political groups that have died "a-bornin'," like the LINA, or have subsequently floundered, like the UNIDO. The respondent also cites Cunanan but from a different viewpoint. According to him, that case expressly allows reorganization at any time to reflect changes in the political alignments in Congress, provided only that such
- 58. changes are permanent.The creation of the LDP constituting the bulk of the former PDP-Laban and to which no less than 24 Liberal congressmen had transferred was a permanent change. That change fully justified his designation to the Commission on Appointments after the reduction of the LP representation therein. Thus, the Court held: Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effect that "there shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives elected by each House, respectively, on the basis of proportional REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEREIN," necessarily connotes the authority of each House of Congress to see to it that this requirement is duly complied with. As a consequence, it may take appropriate measures, not only upon the initial organization of the Commission, but also, subsequently thereto. If by reason of successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which they belonged and/or of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in the representation of the political parties in the House is materially changed, the House is clothed with authority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats in the Commission on Appointments held by members of said House belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change and then fill said vacancies in conformity with the Constitution. In the course of the spirited debate on this matter between the petitioner and the respondent (who was supported by the Solicitor General) an important development has supervened to considerably simplify the present controversy. The petitioner, to repeat, bases his argument heavily on the non-registration of the LDP which, he claims has not provided the permanent political realignment to justify the questioned reorganization. As he insists: (c) Assuming that the so-called new coalesced majority is actually the LDP itself, then the proposed reorganization is likewise illegal and ineffectual, because the LDP, not being a duly registered political party, is not entitled to the "rights and privileges granted by law to political parties' (See. 160, BP No. 881), and therefore cannot legally claim the right to be considered in determining the required proportional representation of political parties in the House of Representatives. 9 xxxxxxxxx ... the clear constitutional intent behind Section 18, Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution, is to give the right of representation in the Commission on Appointment only to political parties who are duly registered with the Comelec. 10 On November 23, 1989, however, that argument boomeranged against the petitioner. On that date, the Commission on Elections in an en banc resolution affirmed the resolution of its First Division dated August 28, 1989, granting the petition of the LDP for registration as a political party. 11 This has taken the wind out of the sails of the petitioner, so to speak, and he must now limp to shore as best he can. The petitioner's contention that, even if registered, the party must still pass the test of time to prove its permanence is not acceptable. Under this theory, a registered party obtaining the majority of the seats in the House of Representatives (or the Senate) would still not be entitled to representation in the Commission on Appointments as long as it was organized only recently and has not yet "aged." The Liberal Party itself would fall in such a category. That party was created in December 1945 by a faction of the Nacionalista Party that seceded therefrom to support Manuel A. Roxas's bid for the Presidency of the Philippines in the election held on April 23, 1946. 12 The Liberal Party won. At that time it was only four months old. Yet no question was raised as to its right to be represented in the Commission on Appointments and in the Electoral Tribunals by virtue of its status as the majority party in both chambers of the Congress. The LDP has been in existence for more than one year now. It now has 157 members in the House of Representatives and 6 members in the Senate. Its titular head is no less than the President of the Philippines and its President is Senator Neptali A. Gonzales, who took over recently from Speaker Ramon V. Mitra. It is true that there have been, and there still are, some internal disagreements among its members, but these are to be expected in any political organization, especially if it is democratic in structure. In fact even the monolithic Communist Party in a number of socialist states has undergone similar dissension, and even upheavals. But it surely cannot be considered still temporary because of such discord. If the petitioner's argument were to be pursued, the 157 members of the LDP in the House of Representatives
- 59. would have tobe denied representation in the Commission on Appointments and, for that matter, also the Electoral Tribunal. By the same token, the KBL, which the petitioner says is now "history only," should also be written off. The independents also cannot be represented because they belong to no political party. That would virtually leave the Liberal Party only with all of its seventeen members to claim all the twelve seats of t he House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments and the six legislative seats in the House Electoral Tribunal. It is noteworthy that when with 41 members the Liberal Party was alloted two of the seats in the Commission on Appointments, it did not express any objection. 13Inconsistently, the petitioner is now opposed to the withdrawal from it of one seat although its original number has been cut by more than half. As for the other condition suggested by the petitioner, to wit, that the party must survive in a general congressional election, the LDP has doubtless also passed that test, if only vicariously. It may even be said that as it now commands the biggest following in the House of Representatives, the party has not only survived but in fact prevailed. At any rate, that test was never laid down in Cunanan. To summarize, then, we hold, in view of the foregoing considerations, that the issue presented to us is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government. As for the alleged technical flaw in the designation of the party respondent, assuming the existence of such a defect, the same may be brushed aside, conformably to existing doctrine, so that the important constitutional issue raised may be addressed. Lastly, we resolve that issue in favor of the authority of the House of Representatives to change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. It is understood that such changes must be permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another. The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this matter, leaving it to be settled by the House of Representatives or the Commission on Appointments as the bodies directly involved. But as our jurisdiction has been invoked and, more importantly, because a constitutional stalemate had to be resolved, there was no alternative for us except to act, and to act decisively. In doing so, of course, we are not imposing our will upon the said agencies, or substituting our discretion for theirs, but merely discharging our sworn responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. That is a duty we do not evade, lest we ourselves betray our oath. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order dated January 13, 1989, is LIFTED. The Court holds that the respondent has been validly elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments and is entitled to assume his seat in that body pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cows, Griño- Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. Sarmiento, J., took no part.