G.R. No. 83767: Firdausi Smail Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal (October 27, 1988) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Petitioners filed an election contest (SET Case No. 002-87) before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11, 1987 congressional elections. The respondent Tribunal was composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court and six Senators.

Petitioners subsequently filed a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition, seeking to disqualify all six Senator-Members of the SET on the ground that they were all interested parties, being respondents in the election contest. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, one of the petitioners, voluntarily inhibited himself from participating in the hearings and deliberations.

The petitioners argued that public policy and due process required the mass disqualification and proposed an amendment to the SET’s Rules (Section 24). This proposed amendment would permit the contest to be decided by only the three Justice-Members, forming a quorum if not less than three members remained, including one Justice, provided more than four members were disqualified. The SET denied the Motion for Disqualification and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari to nullify these resolutions.

Issues

1. Whether the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify or inhibit all six Senator-Members who were respondents in the election contest.
2. Whether the SET Rules of procedure can be amended to allow the three Justice-Members to constitute a quorum and resolve a senatorial election contest when the entire legislative membership (Senators) is disqualified.

Ruling

“The instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit“.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court established the following controlling doctrine and principles:

1. Constitutional Mandate on SET Composition and Function: The Constitution, in Article VI, Section 17, creates the Senate Electoral Tribunal, ordains its composition (three Supreme Court Justices and six Senators), and defines its jurisdiction. This provision mandates that both the “judicial” and “legislative” components must commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of Senators.
2. Impossibility of Total Exclusion of Legislative Component: The composition ratio of Senators to Justices (2 to 1) is an unmistakable indication that the “legislative component” cannot be totally excluded from participating in the resolution of senatorial election contests without doing violence to the spirit and intent of the Constitution.
3. SET Cannot Function Without Senator-Members: The Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such absent its entire membership of Senators.
4. Limits on Rule Amendment: No amendment of the SET’s Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest.
5. Doctrine of Necessity (Implied): Where a situation precludes the substitution of any Senator sitting in the Tribunal by any of his other colleagues without inviting the same objections, mass disqualification would compel the Tribunal to abandon a duty it alone has the power to perform. This duty is in the highest public interest, being expressly imposed by the fundamental law.
6. Voluntary Inhibition Distinguished: While every Member of the Tribunal may, as conscience dictates, voluntarily refrain from participating, this must be a voluntary act, and mass disqualification cannot be compelled if it prevents the Tribunal from discharging its constitutional duty.

Sample Q&A

Question: In an election contest filed before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) involving all 24 sitting Senators, the petitioner moves for the disqualification of all six Senator-Members of the SET, arguing that they are necessarily interested parties. If the motion is granted, allowing the remaining three Justice-Members to resolve the case under an amended rule, would the resolution of the contest be constitutionally valid?

Answer: No, the resolution of the contest by the three Justice-Members alone would be constitutionally invalid. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the SET must be composed of nine members: three Justices and six Senators. This structure signals a clear intent that both “judicial” and “legislative” components must participate in deciding all contests relating to the election and qualifications of Senators. The Supreme Court has ruled that the SET cannot legally function absent its entire membership of Senators, and no amendment of its Rules can confer the power of valid adjudication solely upon the three Justices-Members. The constitutional mandate prioritizing the functioning of the Tribunal outweighs the demands for mass compulsory disqualification in situations where substitution is impossible.

---

#AbbasVsSET #GR83767 #SenateElectoralTribunal #SET #ConstitutionalLawPH #ElectionLawPH #DoctrineOfNecessity #PoliticalLawPH #ArticleVISection17 #Jurisdiction #DueProcessPH #PhilippineJurisprudenceLawStudentPH #PhilippineLaw #SupremeCourtPH #BarExamsPH #LegalEducationPH #LawSchoolPhilippines #FutureLawyerPH #PinoyLawyer #HernandoBar #Bar2025 #LawSchoolDiaries #PhilippineBarLegalUpdates #CaseDigest #DailyLaw #LawStudyGram #LegalMindset #StudyMotivation #LawCommunity #KnowledgeIsPower #LearnTheLaw #SocialMediaForLawyers #LegalInfluencer