G.R. No. 97710 September 26, 1991 DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, petitioner, vs. REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M.

PINEDA, MAGDA ENO M. PA ACO , CO . !"ANITO G. CAMAS"RA, !R., or #$% ot&er repre'e$t#t()e *&o m#% be #ppo($te+ )(,e repre'e$t#t()e !-#$(t# G. C#m#'-r#, !r., #$+ T.E .O"SE O/ REPRESENTATIVES E ECTORA TRIB"NA , respondents. Estelito P. Mendoza, Romulo C. Felixmera and Horacio S.J. Apostol for petitioner. Nicanor S. autista for respondent Marciano M. Pineda. enedicto R. Palacol for respondent M.M. Palacol. GRIO0A1"I2O, J.3p This case involves a question of power. May the House of Representatives, at the request of the dominant political party therein, change that party's representation in the House Electoral Tribunal to thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending therein May the !upreme "ourt review and annul that action of the House Even the !upreme "ourt of the #nited !tates over a century ago, in Mar!ur" #s. Madison, $ %. ed. &' ()*'+,, had hesitated to embar- upon a legal investigation of the acts of the other two branches of the .overnment, finding it /peculiarly ir-some as well as delicate/ because it could be considered by some as /an attempt to intrude/ into the affairs of the other two and to intermeddle with their prerogatives. 0n the past, the !upreme "ourt, as head of the third and wea-est branch of our .overnment, was all too willing to avoid a political confrontation with the other two branches by burying its head ostrich1li-e in the sands of the /political question/ doctrine, the accepted meaning of which is that 'where the matter involved is left to a decision by the people acting in their sovereign capacity or to the sole determination by either or both the legislative or e2ecutive branch of the government, it is beyond 3udicial cogni4ance. Thus it was that in suits where the party proceeded against was either the 5resident or "ongress, or any of its branches for that matter, the courts refused to act./ (6quino vs. 5once Enrile, 78 !"R6 )*+, )8&., 0n time, however, the duty of the courts to loo- into the constitutionality and validity of legislative or e2ecutive action, especially when private rights are affected came to be recogni4ed. 6s we pointed out in the celebrated 6quino case, a showing that plenary power is granted either department of government may not be an obstacle to 3udicial inquiry, for the improvident e2ercise or the abuse thereof may give rise to a 3usticiable controversy. !ince /a constitutional grant of authority is not usually unrestricted, limitations being provided for as to what may be done and how it is to be accomplished, necessarily then, it becomes the responsibility of the courts to ascertain whether the two coordinate branches have adhered to the mandate of the fundamental law. The question thus posed is 3udicial rather than political. The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of the "onstitution is upheld/ (6quino vs. 5once Enrile, 78 !"R6 )*+, )8&,. That duty is a part of the 3udicial power vested in the courts by an e2press grant under !ection ), 6rticle 9000 of the )8*: "onstitution of the 5hilippines which defines 3udicial power as both aut$orit" and dut" of the courts 'to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or e2cess of 3urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the .overnment./

The power and duty of the courts to nullify in appropriate cases, the actions of the e2ecutive and legislative branches of the .overnment, does not mean that the courts are superior to the 5resident and the %egislature. 0t does mean though that the 3udiciary may not shir- /the ir-some tas-/ of inquiring into the constitutionality and legality of legislative or e2ecutive action when a 3usticiable controversy is brought before the courts by someone who has been aggrieved or pre3udiced by such action, as in this case. 0t is ;
a plain e2ercise of the 3udicial power, that power vested in courts to enable them to administer 3ustice according to law. ... 0t is simply a necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose of a case or controversy properly before the court, to the determination of which must be brought the test and measure of the law. (9era vs. 6velino, :: 5hil. )8$, $'+.,

0n the local and congressional elections held on May )), )8*:, Marciano M. 5ineda of the %aban ng <emo-rati-ong 5ilipino (%<5, and <r. Emigdio 6. =ondoc of the >acionalista 5arty (>5, were rival candidates for the position of Representative for the ?ourth <istrict of the province of 5ampanga. Each received the following votes in the canvass made by the 5rovincial =oard of "anvassers of 5ampanga@
Marciano M. 5ineda.................... +),:'' votes Emigdio 6. =ondoc..................... $*,A'' votes <ifference...................................... +,+'' votes

Bn May )8, )8*:, 5ineda was proclaimed winner in the election. 0n due time, =ondoc filed a protest (HRET "ase >o. $7, in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal ( for short, which is composed of nine (8, members, three of whom are Custices of the !upreme "ourt and the remaining si2 are members of the House of Representatives chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organi4ations registered under the party1list system represented therein (!ec. ):, 6rt. 90, )8*: "onstitution, as follows@ 6ME#R?0>6 M. HERRER6 6ssociate Custice !upreme "ourt 0!6.6>0 6. "R#D 6ssociate Custice !upreme "ourt ?%BRE>T0>B 5. ?E%0"06>B 6ssociate Custice !upreme "ourt Member Member "hairman

HB>BR6TB E. 6F#0>B "ongressman )st <istrict =enguet %<5 <690< 6. 5B>"E <E %EB> "ongressman )st <istrict 5alawan %<5 !0MEB> E. .6R"06, CR. "ongressman $nd <istrict >ueva Eci3a %<5 C#6>0TB .. "6M6!#R6, CR. "ongressman )st <istrict <avao del !ur %<5 CB!E E. "6%0>.6!6> "ongressman Ath <istrict =atangas

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

%<5 6>TB>0B H. "ER0%%E! "ongressman $nd <istrict Damboanga del !ur (formerly .6<, now >5, 6fter the revision of the ballots, the presentation of evidence, and submission of memoranda, =ondoc's protest was submitted for decision in Culy, )8*8. =y Bctober )88', a decision had been reached in which =ondoc won over 5ineda by a margin of twenty1three ($+, votes. 6t that point, the %<5 members in the Tribunal insisted on a reappreciation and recount of the ballots cast in some precincts, thereby delaying by at least four (A, months the finali4ation of the decision in the case. The ree2amination and re1appreciation of the ballots resulted in increasin% =ondoc's lead over 5ineda to )': votes. "ongressman "amasura voted with the !upreme "ourt Custices and "ongressman "erilles to proclaim =ondoc the winner of the contest. Moved by candor and honesty, "ongressman "amasura revealed on March A, )88), to his '"hief,/ "ongressman Cose !. "o3uangco, Cr., %<5 !ecretary .eneral, not only the final tally in the =ondoc case but also that he voted for =ondoc /consistent with truth and 3ustice and self1 respect,/ and to honor a /gentlemen's agreement/ among the members of the HRET that they would /abide by the result of the appreciation of the contested ballot 1 "ongressman "amasura's revelation stirred a hornets' nest in the %<5 which went into a flurry of plotting appropriate moves to neutrali4e the pro1=ondoc ma3ority in the Tribunal. Bn March 7, )88), the HRET issued a >otice of 5romulgation of <ecision on March )A, )88) at $@+' 5.M. in HRET "ase >o. $7. 6 copy of the notice was received by =ondoc's counsel on March &, )88). Bn March )+, )88), the eve of the promulgation of the =ondoc decision, "ongressman "o3uangco informed "ongressman "amasura by letter 2 that on ?ebruary $*, )88) yet, the %<5 <avao del !ur "hapter at <igos, <avao del !ur, by Resolution >o. '+18) had already e2pelled him and "ongressman =en3amin =autista from the %<5 for having allegedly helped to organi4e the 5artido 5ilipino of Eduardo /<anding/ "o3uangco, and for allegedly having invited %<5 members in <avao del !ur to 3oin said political partyG and that as those acts are /not only inimical uncalled for, unethical and immoral, but also a complete betrayal to (sic, the cause and ob3ectives, and loyalty to %<5,/ in a meeting on March )$, )88), the %<5 E2ecutive "ommittee unanimously confirmed the e2pulsions. 4 6t the same time, "ongressman "o3uangco notified !pea-er Ramon 9. Mitra about the ouster of the two congressmen from the %<5, and as-ed the House of Representatives, through the !pea-er, to ta-e note of it 'especially in matters where party membership is a prerequisite. 5 6t 8@A7 in the morning of March A, )88), the "hairman of the Tribunal, Mme. Custice Member

6rmeurfina M. Herrera, received the following letter dated March )+, )88), from the Bffice of the !ecretary .eneral of the House of Representatives, informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from the %<5, the House of Representatives, during its plenary session on March )+, )88), decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of "ongressman "amasura, Cr. to the House of Electoral Tribunal. The letter reads as follows@
)+ March )88) Honorable Custice 6meurfina Melencio1Herrera "hairman House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal "onstitution Hills Fue4on "ity <ear Honorable Custice Melencio1Herrera@ 0 have the honor to notify the House of Electoral Tribunal of the decision of the House of Representatives during its plenary session on )+ March )88), to &it$dra& t$e nomination and to rescind t$e election of t$e Honora!le Juanito '. Camasura, Jr. to t$e House Electoral (ri!unal on the basis of an %<5 communication which is self1e2planatory and copies of which are hereto attached. Than- you. ?or the !ecretary1.eneral (!.<., Cosefina <. 64arcon Bfficer1in1charge Bperations <epartment (p. )', Rollo.,

Custices Herrera, "ru4, and ?eliciano promptly apprised the "hief Custice and 6ssociate Custices of the !upreme "ourt in writing, of this /distressing development' and as-ed to be relieved from their assignments in the HRET because ;
=y the above action (of the House, the promulgation of the decision of the Tribunal in the electoral protest entitled ) ondoc #. Pineda) (HRET "ase >o. $7,, previously scheduled for )A March )88), is sought to be aborted (!ee the "onsolidated =an- and Trust "orporation v. Hon. 0ntermediate 6ppellate "ourt, ..R. >o. :+:::1:* promulgated )$ !eptember )88',. Even if there were no legal impediment to its promulgation, the decision which was reached on a 7 to A vote may now be confidently e2pected to be overturned on a motion for reconsideration by the party1litigant which would have been defeated. The decision in ondoc #. Pineda was ready as early as Bctober )88' with a margin of $+ votes in favor of protestant =ondoc. =ecause some members of the Tribunal requested re1 appreciation of some ballots, the finali4ation of the decision had to be deferred by at least A months. Hith the re1appreciation completed, the decision, now with a margin of )': votes in favor of protestant =ondoc, and concurred in by Custices 6meurfina 6. Melencio1Herrera, 0sagani 6. "ru4 and ?lorentino 5. ?eliciano, and "ongressmen Cuanita .. "amasura and 6ntonio H. "erilles, is set for promulgation on )A March )88), with "ongressmen Honorato E. 6quino, <avid 6. 5once de %eon !imeon E. .arcia, Cr. and Cose E. "alingasan, dissenting. "ongressman "asamura's vote in the ondoc #. Pineda case was, in our view, a conscience vote, for which he earned the respect of the Tribunal but also the loss of the confidence of the leader of his party. #nder the above circumstances an untenable situation has come about. 0t is e2tremely difficult to continue with membership in the Tribunal and for the Tribunal to preserve it. * integrity and credibility as a constitutional body charged with a 3udicial tas-. 0t is clear to us that the unseating of an incumbent member of "ongress is being prevented at all costs. He believe that the Tribunal should not be hampered in the performance of its constitutional function by factors which have nothing to do with the merits of the cases before it. 0n this connection, our own e2perience teaches that the provision for proportional representation in the Tribunal found in 6rticle 90, !ection ): of the )8*: "onstitution, should be amended to provide instead for a return to the composition mandated in the )8+7 "onstitution, that is@ three (+, members chosen by the House or !enate upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three (+, of the party having the second largest number of votes@ and a 3udicial component consisting of three (+, 3ustices from the !upreme "ourt. Thereby, no party or coalition of parties can dominate the legislative

component in the Tribunal. 0n the alternative, the !enate Electoral Tribunal could perhaps sit as the sole 3udge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. !imilarly, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal could sit as the sole 3udge of all such contests involving members of the !enate. 0n this way, there should be lesser chances of non13udicial elements playing a decisive role in the resolution of election contests. He suggest that there should also be a provision in the "onstitution that upon designation to membership in the Electoral Tribunal, those so designated should divest themselves of affiliation with their respective political parties, to insure their independence and ob3ectivity as they sit in Tribunal deliberations. There are only three (+, remaining cases for decision by the Tribunal. =ondoc should have been promulgated today, )A March )88). Ca!rera #. Apaci!le (HRET "ase >o. $), is scheduled for promulgation on +) March )88) and *ucman #. +imaporo (HRET "ase >o. A7,, after the Holy Hee- recess. =ut political factors are bloc-ing the accomplishment of the constitutionally mandated tas- of the Tribunal well ahead of the completion of the present congressional term. #nder these circumstances, we are compelled to as- to be relieved from the chairmanship and membership in the Tribunal. 222 222 222

6t the open session of the HRET in the afternoon of the same day, the Tribunal issued Resolution >o. 8)1'')* cancelling the promulgation of the decision in HRET "ase >o. $7. The resolution reads@
0n view of the formal notice the Tribunal has received at 8@A7 tills morning from the House of Representatives that at its plenary session held on March )+, )88), it had voted to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of "ongressman "amasura to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,' the Tribunal Resolved to cancel the promulgation of its <ecision in =ondoc vs. 5ineda (HRET "ase >o. $7, scheduled for this afternoon. This is because, without "ongressman "amasura's vote, the decision lac-s the concurrence of five members as required by !ection $A of the Rules of the Tribunal and, therefore, cannot be validly promulgated. The Tribunal noted that the three (+, Custices1members of the !upreme "ourt, being of the opinion that this development undermines the independence of the Tribunal and derails the orderly ad3udication of electoral cases, they have as-ed the "hief Custice, in a letter of even date, for their relief from membership in the Tribunal. The Tribunal further >oted that "ongressman "erilles also manifested his intention to resign as a member of the Tribunal. The Tribunal further >oted that "ongressmen 6quino, 5once de %eon, .arcia, Cr., and "alingasan also manifested a similar intention. (p. +:, Rollo.,

Bn March )8, )88), this "ourt, after deliberating on the request for relief of Custices Herrera, "ru4 and ?eliciano, resolved to direct them to return to their duties in the Tribunal. The "ourt observed that@
... in view of the sensitive constitutional functions of the Electoral Tribunals as the 'sole 3udge' of all contests relationship to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of "ongress, all members of these bodies are appropriately guided only by purely legal considerations in the decision of the cases before them and that in the contemplation of the "onstitution the members1legislators, thereof, upon assumption of their duties therein, sit in the Tribunal no longer as representatives of their respective political parties but as impartial 3udges. The view was also submitted that, to further bolster the independence of the Tribunals, the term of office of every member thereof should be considered co1e2tensive with the corresponding legislative term and may not be legally terminated e2cept only by death, resignation, permanent disability, or removal for valid cause, not including political disloyalty. 6""BR<0>.%E, the "ourt Resolved@ a, to <E"%0>E the request of 3ustices Herrera, "ru4, and ?eliciano to be relieved from their membership in the House of Representatives

Electoral Tribunal and instead to <0RE"T them to resume their duties therein@ b, to EI5RE!! its concern over the intrusion of non13udicial factors in the proceedings of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, which performs functions purely 3udicial in character despite the inclusion of legislators in its membershipG and c, to >BTE the view that the term of all the members of the Electoral Tribunals, including those from the legislature, is co1e2tensive with the corresponding legislative term and cannot be terminated at will but only for valid legal cause, and to REF#0RE the Custices1members of the Tribunal to submit the issue to the said Tribunal in the first instance. 5aras J. filed this separate concurring opinion@ '0 concur, but 0 wish to add that Rep. "amasura should be allowed to cast his original vote in favor of protestant =ondoc, otherwise a political and 3udicial travesty will ta-e place.' Melencio1Herrera, "ru4 and ?eliciano, JJ., too- no part. .ancayco, J., is on leave.

Bn March $), )88), a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was filed by <r. Emigdio 6. =ondoc against Representatives Marciano M. 5ineda, Magdaleno M. 5alacol, Cuanita .. "amasura, Cr., or any other representative who may be appointed 9ice Representative Cuanita .. "amasura, Cr., and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, praying this "ourt to@
). 6nnul the decision of the House of Representatives of March )+, )88), 'to withdraw the nomination and to rescind the nomination of Representative Cuanita .. "amasura, Cr. to the House of Representatives Electoral TribunalG/ $. 0ssue a wilt of prohibition restraining respondent 5alacol or whomsoever may be designated in place of respondent "amasura from assuming, occupying and discharging functions as a member of the House of Representatives Electoral TribunalG +. 0ssue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent "amasura to immediately reassume and discharge his functions as a member of the House of Representatives Electoral TribunalG and A. .rant such other relief as may be 3ust and equitable.

#pon receipt of the petition, the "ourt, without giving it due course, required the respondents to comment 6 on the petition within ten days from notice and to en3oin the HRET 'from reorgani4ing and allowing participation in its proceedings of Honorable Magdaleno M. 5alacol or whoever is designated to replace Honorable Cuanita .. "amasura in said House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, until the issue of the withdrawal of the nomination and rescission of the election of said "ongressman "amasura as member of the HRET by the House of Representatives is resolved by this "ourt, or until otherwise ordered by the "ourt./ (p. +8, Rollo., "ongressman Cuanito .. "amasura, Cr. did not oppose the petition. "ongressman Marciano M. 5ineda's plea for the dismissal of the petition is centered on "ongress' being the sole authority that nominates and elects from its members. #pon recommendation by the political parties therein, those who are to sit in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (and in the "ommission on 6ppointments as well,, hence, it allegedly has the sole power to remove any of them whenever the ratio in the representation of the political parties in the House or !enate is materially changed on account of death, incapacity, remo#al or expulsion from t$e political part", 6 that a Tribunal member's term of office is not co1e2tensive with his legislative term, 7 for if a member of the Tribunal who changes his party affiliation is not removed from the Tribunal, the constitutional provision mandating representation based on political affiliation would be completely nullifiedG 7 and that the e2pulsion of "ongressman "amasura from the %<5, is /purely a party affair/ of the %<5 9 and the decision to rescind his membership in the House Electoral Tribunal is the sole prerogative of the House1of1Representative Representatives, hence, it is a purely political question beyond the reach of 3udicial review.
10

0n his comment, respondent "ongressman Magdaleno M. 5alacol alleged that the

petitioner has no cause of action against him because he has not yet been nominated by the %<5 for membership in the HRET. 11 Moreover, the petition failed to implead the House of Representatives as an indispensable party for it was the House, not the HRET that withdrew and rescinded "ongressman "amasura's membership in the HRET. 12 The !olicitor .eneral, as counsel for the Tribunal, argued in a similar veinG that the inclusion of the HETH as a party respondent is erroneous because the petition states no cause of action against the Tribunal. The petitioner does not question any act or order of the HRET in violation of his rights. Hhat he assails is the act of the House of Representatives of withdrawing the nomination, and rescinding the election, of "ongressman Cuanita nito "amasura as a member of the HRET. 14 Replying to the !olicitor .eneral's Manifestation, the petitioner argued that while the Tribunal indeed had nothing to do with the assailed decision of the House of Representatives, it ac-nowledged that decision by cancelling the promulgation of its decision in HRET "ase >o. $7 to his (=ondoc's, pre3udice. 15 Hence, although the Tribunal may not be an indispensable party, it is a necessary party to the suit, to assure that complete relief is accorded to the petitioner for /in the ultimate, the Tribunal would have to ac-nowledge, give recognition, and implement the !upreme "ourt's decision as to whether the relief of respondent "ongressman "amasura from the Bffice of the Electoral Tribunal is valid./ 16 0n his reply to "ongressman 5alacol's "omment, the petitioner e2plained that "ongressman 5alacol was impleaded as one of the respondents in this case because after the House of Representatives had announced the termination of "ongressman "amasura's membership in the HETH several newspapers of general circulation reported that the House of Representatives would nominate and elect "ongressman 5alacol to ta-e "ongressman "amasura's seat in the Tribunal. 16 >ow, is the House of Representatives empowered by the "onstitution to do that, i.e., to interfere with the disposition of an election contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the ruse of /reorgani4ing/ the representation in the tribunal of the ma3ority party !ection ):, 6rticle 90 of the )8*: "onstitution supplies the answer to that question. 0t provides@
!ection ):. The !enate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole 3udge 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 Custices of the !upreme "ourt to be designated by the "hief Custice, and the remaining si2 shall be Members of the !enate or House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organi4ations registered under the party list system represented therein. The senior Custice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its "hairman.

!ection ): reechoes !ection )), 6rticle 90 of the )8+7 "onstitution, e2cept the provision on the representation of the main political parties in the tribunal which is now based on proportional representation from all the political parties, instead of e-ual representation of three members from each of the first and second largest political aggrupations in the %egislature. The )8+7 constitutional provision reads as follows@
!ec. )). The !enate and the House of Representatives shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole 3udge 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 Custices of the !upreme "ourt to be designated by the "hief Custice, and the remaining si2 shall be Members of the !enate 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 member of votes therein. The senior Custice in each Electoral Tribunal shall

be its "hairman. () 8+7 "onstitution of the 5hilippines.,

#nder the above provision, the Custices held the deciding votes, aid it was impossible for any political party to control the voting in the tribunal. The )8:+ "onstitution did not provide for an electoral tribunal in the =atasang 5ambansa. The use of the word /sole/ in both !ection ): of the )8*: "onstitution and !ection )) of the )8+7 "onstitution underscores the exclusi#e 3urisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal as 3udge of contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives (Robles vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, ..R. >o. *&&A:, ?ebruary 7, )88',. The tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court although two1thirds of its members are politicians. 0t is a non1political body in a sea of politicians. Hhat this "ourt had earlier said about the Electoral "ommission applies as well to the electoral tribunals of the !enate and House of Representatives@
The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral "ommission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative office, devoid of partisan consideration, and to transfer to that tribunal all the powers previously e2ercised by the legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its members. The power granted to the electoral "ommission to 3udge contests relating to the election and qualification of members of the >ational 6ssembly is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained in the legislature. The Electoral Tribunals of the !enate and the House were created by the "onstitution as special tribunals to be the sole 3udge of all contests relating to election returns and qualifications of members of the legislative houses, and, as such, are independent bodies which must be permitted to select their own employees, and to supervise and control them, without any legislative interference. (!uanes vs. "hief 6ccountant of the !enate, *) 5hil. *)*.,

To be able to e2ercise e2clusive 3urisdiction, the House Electoral Tribunal must be independent. 0ts 3urisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests is not to be shared by it with the %egislature nor with the "ourts.
The Electoral "ommission is a body separate from and independent of t$e le%islature and though not a power in the tripartite scheme of government, it is to all intents and purposes, when acting within the limits of its authority, an independent organG while composed of a ma3ority of members of the legislature it is a body separate from and independent of the legislature. 222 222 222 The Electoral "ommission, a constitutional organ created for the specific purpose of determining contests relating to election returns and qualifications of members of the >ational 6ssembly ma" not !e interfered &it$ !" t$e .udiciar" when and while acting within the limits of its authority, but the !upreme "ourt has 3urisdiction over the Electoral "ommission for the purpose of determining the character, scope and e2tent of the constitutional grant to the commission as sole 3udge of all contests relating to the election and qualifications of the members of the >ational 6ssembly. (6ngara vs. Electoral "ommission, &+ 5hil. )+8.,

The independence of the electoral tribunal was preserved undiminished in the )8*: "onstitution as the following e2changes on the sub3ect between "ommissioners Maambong and 64cuna in the )8*& "onstitutional "ommission, attest@
MR. M66M=B>.. Than- you. My questions will be very basic so we can go as fast as we can. 0n the case of the electoral tribunal, either of the House or of the !enate, is it correct to say that these tribunals are constitutional creations 0 will distinguish these with the case of the Tanodbayan and the !andiganbayan which are created by mandate of the "onstitution but they are not constitutional creations. 0s that a good distinction MR. 6D"#>6. That is an e2cellent statement. MR. M66M=B>.. "ould we, therefore, say that either the !enate Electoral Tribunal or the House Electoral

Tribunal is a constitutional body. MR. 6D"#>6. 0t is, Madam 5resident. MR. M66M=B>.. 0f it is a constitutional body, is it then sub3ect to constitutional restrictions MR. 6D"#>6 0t would be sub3ect to constitutional restrictions intended for that body. MR. M66M=B>.. 0 see. =ut 0 want to find out if the ruling in the case of 9era vs. 6velino, :: 5hil. )8$, will still be applicable to the present bodies we are creating since it ruled that the electoral tribunals are not separate departments of the government. Hould that ruling still be valid MR. 6D"#>6. Ees, they are not separate departments because the separate departments are the legislative, the e2ecutive and the 3udiciaryG but they are constitutional bodies. MR. M66M=B>.. 6lthough they are not separate departments of government, 0 would li-e to -now again if the ruling in An%ara #s. Electoral Commission, /0 P$il. 102, &ould still !e applica!le to t$e present !odies &e are decidin% on, &$en t$e Supreme court said t$at t$ese electoral tri!unals are independent from Con%ress, de#oid of partisan influence or consideration and, t$erefore, Con%ress $as no po&er to re%ulate proceedin%s of t$ese electoral tri!unals. MR. 6D"#>6. 0 thin- that is correct. They are independent although they are not a separate branch of government. MR. M66M=B>.. There is a statement that in all parliaments of the world, the invariable rule is to leave unto themselves the determination of controversies with respect to the election and qualifications of their members, and precisely they have this "ommittee on 5rivileges which ta-es care of this particular controversy. Hould the .entleman say that the creation of electoral tribunals is an e2ception to this rule because apparently we have an independent electoral tribunal MR. 6D"#>6. To the e2tent that the electoral tribunals are independent, but the .entleman will notice that the wordings say@ 'The !enate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal. '0t is still the !enate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal. !o, technically, it is the tribunal of the House and tribunal of the !enate although they are independent. MR. M66M=B>.. =ut both of them, as we have agreed on, are independent from both bodies MR. 6D"#>6. That is correct. MR. M66M=B>.. This is the bottom line of my question. How can we say that these bodies are independent when we still have si2 politicians sitting in both tribunals MR. 6D"#>6. 5oliticians can be independent, Madam 5resident. MR. M66M=B>.. Madam 5resident, when we discussed a portion of this in the "ommittee on the E2ecutive, there was a comment by "hief Custice "oncepcion1"ommissioner "oncepcion1that there seems to be some incongruity in these electoral tribunals, considering that politicians still sit in the tribunals in spite of the fact that in the ruling in the case of Sanidad #s. 3era, Senate Electoral tribunal "ase >o. ), they are supposed to act in accordance with law and 3ustice with complete detachment from an political considerations. That is why 0 am as-ing now for the record how we could achieve such detachment when there are si2 politicians sitting there. MR. 6D"#>6. The same reason that the .entleman, while chosen on behalf of the opposition, has, with sterling competence, shown independence in the proceedings of this "ommission. 0 thin- we can also trust that the members of the tribunals will be independent. (pp. )))1))$, Cournal, Tuesday, Culy $$, )8*&, Emphasis supplied.,

Resolution of t$e House of Representati#es #iolates t$e independence of t$e HRE(. 4 The independence of the House Electoral Tribunal so 4ealously guarded by the framers of our "onstitution, would, however, by a myth and its proceedings a farce if the House of Representatives, or the ma3ority party therein, may shuffle and manipulate the political (as distinguished from the 3udicial, component of the electoral tribunal, to serve the interests of the party in power. The resolution of the House of Representatives removing "ongressman "amasura from the House Electoral Tribunal for disloyalty to the %<5, because he cast his vote in favor of the >acionalista 5arty's candidate, =ondoc, is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole .ud%e of the election contest between 5ineda and =ondoc. To sanction such interference by the House of Representatives in the wor- of the House Electoral Tribunal would reduce the tribunal to a mere tool for the aggrandi4ement of the party in power (%<5, which the three 3ustices of the !upreme "ourt and the lone >5 member would be powerless to stop. 6 minority party candidate may as well abandon all hope at the threshold of the tribunal. +islo"alt" to part" is not a #alid cause for termination of mem!ers$ip in t$e HRE(. 4 6s 3udges, the members of the tribunal must be non1partisan. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even independence

from the political party to which they belong. Hence, /disloyalty to party/ and /breach of party discipline,/ are not valid grounds for the e2pulsion of a member of the tribunal. 0n e2pelling "ongressman "amasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote/ in favor of =ondoc, based strictly on the result of the e2amination and appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion, an in3ustice, and a violation of the "onstitution. 0ts resolution of e2pulsion against "ongressman "amasura is, therefore, null and void. Expulsion of Con%ressman Camasura #iolates $is ri%$t to securit" of tenure. 4 6nother reason for the nullity of the e2pulsion resolution of the House of Representatives is that it violates "ongressman "amasura's right to security of tenure. Members of the HRET as /sole 3udge/ of congressional election contests, are entitled to security of tenure 3ust as members of the 3udiciary en3oy security of tenure under our "onstitution (!ec. $, 6rt. 9000, )8*: "onstitution,. Therefore, membership in the House Electoral Tribunal may not be terminated e2cept for a 3ust cause, such as, the e2piration of the member's congressional term of office, his death, permanent disability, resignation from the political party he represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with another political party, or removal for other valid cause. 6 member may not be e2pelled by the House of Representatives for /party disloyalty/ short of proof that he has formally affiliated with another political group. 6s the records of this case fail to show that "ongressman "amasura has become a registered member of another political party, his e2pulsion from the %<5 and from the HRET was not for a valid cause, hence, it violated his right to security of tenure. There is nothing to the argument of respondent 5ineda that members of the House Electoral Tribunal are not entitled to security of tenure because, as a matter of fact, two !upreme "ourt Custices in the Tribunal were changed before the end of the congressional term, namely@ "hief Custice Marcelo =. ?ernan who, upon his elevation to the office of "hief Custice, was replaced by Custice ?lorentino 5. ?eliciano, and the latter, who was temporarily replaced by Custice Emilio 6. .ancayco, when he (C. ?eliciano, too- a leave of absence to deliver a lecture in Eale #niversity. 0t should be stressed, however, that those changes in the 3udicial composition to the HRET had no political implications at all unli-e the present attempt to remove "ongressman "amasura. >o coercion was applied on "hief Custice ?ernan to resign from the tribunal, nor on Custice ?eliciano to go on a leave of absence. They acted on their own free will, for valid reasons, and with no covert design to derail the disposition of a pending case in the HRET. The case of "ongressman "amasura is different. He was e2pelled from, and by, the %<5 to punish him for /party disloyalty/ after he had revealed to the !ecretary1.eneral of the party how he voted in the =ondoc case. The purpose of the e2pulsion of "ongressman "amasura was to nullify his vote in the =ondoc case so that the HRET's decision may not be promulgated, and so that the way could be cleared for the %<5 to nominate a replacement for "ongressman "amasura in the Tribunal. That stratagem of the %<5 and the House of Representatives is clearly aimed to substitute "ongressman "amasura's vote and, in effect, to change the 3udgment of the HRET in the =ondoc case. The 3udicial power of this "ourt has been invo-ed by =ondoc for the protection of his rights against the strong arm of the ma3ority party in the House of Representatives. The "ourt cannot be deaf to his plea for relief, nor indifferent to his charge that the House of Representatives had acted with grave abuse of discretion in removing "ongressman "amasura from the House Electoral Tribunal. He calls upon the "ourt, as guardian of the "onstitution, to e2ercise its 3udicial power and discharge its duty to protect his rights as the party aggrieved by the action of the House. The "ourt must perform its dut" under the "onstitution /even when the violator be the highest official of the land or the .overnment itself/ ("oncurring opinion of C. 6ntonio =arredo in 6quino vs. 5once1Enrile, 78 !"R6 )*+,

$':,. !ince the e2pulsion of "ongressman "amasura from the House Electoral Tribunal by the House of Representatives was not for a lawful and valid cause, but to un3ustly interfere with the tribunal's disposition of the =ondoc case and to deprive =ondoc of the fruits of the Tribunal's decision in his favor, the action of the House of Representatives is clearly violative of the constitutional mandate (!ec. ):, 6rt. 90, )8*: "onstitution, which created the House Electoral Tribunal to be the /sole 3udge/ of the election contest between 5ineda and =ondoc. He, therefore, declare null and void the resolution dated March )+, )88) of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination, and rescinding the election, of "ongressman "amasura as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal. The petitioner, <r. Emigdio =ondoc, is entitled to the reliefs he prays for in this case. HHERE?BRE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is granted. The decision of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the election of "ongressman Cuanita .. "amasura, Cr. as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal is hereby declared null and void a! initio for being violative of the "onstitution, and "ongressman Cuanita .. "amasura, Cr. is ordered reinstated to his position as a member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. The HRET Resolution >o. 8)1 '')* dated March )A, )88), cancelling the promulgation of the decision in HRET "ase >o. $7 (/<r. Emigdio =ondoc vs. Marciano 6. 5ineda/, is also set aside. "onsidering the unconscionable delay incurred in the promulgation of that decision to the pre3udice of the speedy resolution of electoral cases, the "ourt, in the e2ercise of its equity 3urisdiction, and in the interest of 3ustice, hereby declares the said decision <#%E 5RBM#%.6TE<, effective upon service of copies thereof on the parties, to be done immediately by the Tribunal. "osts against respondent Marciano 6. 5ineda. !B BR<ERE<.