Facts
Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc (Nacionalista Party/NP) filed an electoral protest (HRET Case No. 25) against Marciano M. Pineda (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino/LDP) for a seat in the House of Representatives. After revision and recount, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) reached a decision favorable to Bondoc, giving him a margin of 107 votes. The decision was supported by a 5-4 majority, which included the three Supreme Court Justices, NP Congressman Cerilles, and Congressman Juanito G. Camasura, Jr., who was an LDP member. Camasura informed his party that he voted for Bondoc based on “truth and justice” and adherence to a “gentlemen’s agreement” among HRET members (a “conscience vote”).
Following Camasura’s revelation, the LDP Executive Committee confirmed his expulsion from the party for allegedly helping organize a rival political party. On the eve of the decision’s scheduled promulgation, the House of Representatives, in plenary session, voted to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura to the HRET based on the LDP communication. Without Camasura’s vote, the HRET canceled the promulgation of the decision, noting that it lacked the necessary concurrence of five members. Bondoc petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the House resolution and compel Camasura’s reinstatement.
Issues
- May the House of Representatives legally withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of a legislative member of the House Electoral Tribunal (HRET) based on political disloyalty (a conscience vote)?
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the action of the House of Representatives regarding the membership of the HRET?
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is granted. The decision of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the election of Congressman Juanita G. Camasura, Jr. as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal is hereby declared null and void ab initio for being violative of the Constitution, and Congressman Juanita G. Camasura, Jr. is ordered reinstated to his position as a member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. The HRET Resolution No. 91-0018 dated March 14, 1991, cancelling the promulgation of the decision in HRET Case No. 25 (“Dr. Emigdio Bondoc vs. Marciano A. Pineda”) is also set aside. Considering the unconscionable delay incurred in the promulgation of that decision to the prejudice of the speedy resolution of electoral cases, the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, and in the interest of justice, hereby declares the said decision DULY PROMULGATED, effective upon service of copies thereof on the parties, to be done immediately by the Tribunal. Costs against respondent Marciano A. Pineda.
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court established the following controlling doctrines and legal principles:
- Judicial Power and Review of Government Action: Judicial power is not merely an authority but a duty of the courts 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 (Section 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). This duty necessitates inquiring into the constitutionality and legality of legislative or executive action when a justiciable controversy is brought before the courts.
- Independence of the Electoral Tribunal (HRET): The HRET is a constitutional body created to function as a nonpartisan court, separate from and independent of the legislature. The use of the word “sole judge” in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution underscores the Tribunal’s exclusive and unimpaired jurisdiction over congressional election contests.
- HRET Members as Impartial Judges: Members of the HRET, including the legislators, sit in the Tribunal no longer as representatives of their respective political parties but as impartial judges. As judges, they must discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence, including independence from the political party to which they belong.
- Security of Tenure: Members of the HRET are entitled to security of tenure. Membership may not be terminated except for a just cause (e.g., expiration of term, death, formal affiliation with another political party).
- Invalid Grounds for Removal: “Disloyalty to party” and “breach of party discipline” are not valid grounds for the expulsion or removal of a member of the Tribunal. The act of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura for his conscience vote was deemed a clear impairment of the HRET’s constitutional prerogative as “sole judge”.
Sample Q&A
Question: The House of Representatives (the House) removes Congressman X from the House Electoral Tribunal (HRET) after he cast a deciding vote against the interest of his dominant political party in an election contest. The House claims it must maintain the proportional representation ratio of political parties in the HRET. May the House validly remove Congressman X, and does the Supreme Court have the power to reverse this removal, notwithstanding the doctrine of separation of powers?
Answer: No, the House may not validly remove Congressman X, and the Supreme Court may reverse the action. The House’s resolution removing Congressman X for “party disloyalty” is null and void ab initio because it constitutes a grave abuse of discretion and violates the Constitution. The removal impairs the constitutional mandate of the HRET to be the “sole judge” of election contests, as provided in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. A legislative member, upon designation to the HRET, sits as an impartial judge, and disloyalty to a political party is not a valid cause for terminating their constitutionally protected security of tenure in the Tribunal. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is empowered to review and annul the action of the House of Representatives, as its judicial power includes the duty to determine whether 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, pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
#BondocVsPineda #GR97710 #HRET #HouseElectoralTribunal #ConstitutionalLawPH #ElectionLawPH #SecurityOfTenure #JudicialIndependence #ArticleVISection17 #ConscienceVote #GraveAbuseOfDiscretion #PoliticalLawPHLawStudentPH #PhilippineLaw #SupremeCourtPH #BarExamsPH #LegalEducationPH #LawSchoolPhilippines #FutureLawyerPH #PinoyLawyer #HernandoBar #Bar2025 #ConstitutionalLaw #PhilippineJurisprudenceLegalUpdates #CaseDigest #DailyLaw #LawStudyGram #LegalMindset #StudyMotivation #LawCommunity #KnowledgeIsPower #LearnTheLaw #SocialMediaForLawyers #LegalInfluencer
Leave a Reply