1. Macalintal vs. Presidential Electoral Tribunal

G.R. No. 191618: November 23, 2010 ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTA ATTY. M ACALINTAL, L, Pe!!o"er, Pe !!o"er, v. PR#$I%#NTIAL #L#CTORAL #L#C TORAL TRIBUNAL, Re&'o"(e". N)*+r), -.: ACT$:

 Atty. Romulo Macalintal  Atty. Macalintal questions the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Electoral Tribunal(PET) Trib unal(PET) as an illegal and unauthorized una uthorized progeny of ection !"Article #$$ of the %onstitution. ISSUES:

Whether the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is unconstitutional for being a violation of paragraph 7, Section 4 of Article VII of the 1!7 "onstitution Whether the designation of #e#bers of the supre#e court as #e#bers of the  presidential  presiden tial electoral electoral tribunal tribunal is unconstitutiona unconstitutionall for being being a violation violation of Section Section 1$,  Article VIII VIII of the 1!7 1!7 "onstitution "onstitution /#L%: Co"&!!o") L) !r& I&&e:

Petitioner" a prominent election la&yer &ho has filed se'eral cases before this %ourt in'ol'ing constitutional and election la& issues" including" among others" the constitutionality of certain pro'isions of Republic Act (R.A.) o. *+ (The ,'erseas  Absentee #oting #oting Act Act of -/)"cannot claim ignorance of0 (*) the in'ocation of our  1urisdiction under ection !" Articl Article e #$$ of the %onstitution2 %onstitution2 and (-) the unanimous holding thereon. 3nquestionably" theo'erarching frame&or4affirmed inTecson inTecson '. %ommission on Electionsis that the upreme %ourt has original 1urisdiction to decide presidential and 'ice5presidential election protests &hile concurrentlyacting as an independent Electoral Tr Tribunal. ibunal. #erba #e rba legisdictates that &here'er possible" the &ords used in the %onstitution must

be gi'en their ordinary meaning e6cept &here technical terms are employed" in &hich case the significance thus attached to them pre'ails. 7o&e'er" &here there is ambiguity or doubt" the &ords of the %onstitution should be interpreted in accordance &ith the intent of its framers orratio legis et anima. A doubtful pro'ision must be e6amined in light of the history of the times" and the condition and circumstances surrounding the framing of the %onstitution. 8ast"ut magis 'aleat quam pereat the %onstitution is to be interpreted as a &hole. 9y the same to4en" the PET is not a separate and distinct entity from the upreme %ourt" albeit it has functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. $t is ob'ious that the PET &as constituted in implementation of ection !" Article #$$ of the %onstitution" and it faithfully complies not unla&fully defies the constitutional directi'e. The adoption of a separate seal" as &ell as the change in the nomenclature of the %hief :ustice and the Associate :ustices into %hairman and Members of the Tribunal" respecti'ely" &as designed simply to highlight the singularity and e6clusi'ity of the Tribunals functions as a special electoral court. the PET" as intended by the framers of the %onstitution" is to be an institutionindependent"but not sep arate" from the 1udicial department"i.e." the upreme %ourt. $e*o"( I&&e:

$t is also beyond ca'il that &hen the upreme %ourt" as PET" resol'es a presidential or 'ice5presidential election contest" it performs &hat is essentially a 1udicial po&er. $n the landmar4 case ofAngara '. Electoral %ommission":ustice :ose P. 8aurel enucleated that ;it &ould be inconcei'able if the %onstitution had not pro'ided for a mechanism by &hich to direct the course of go'ernment along constitutional channels.; $n fact"Angarapointed out that ; %onstitution did not contain the e6panded definition of 1udicial po&er found in Article #$$$" ection *" paragraph of the present %onstitution. %#NI#%