Digest Author: Margreth Rizzini A. Montejo Pimentel vs House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal GR NO. 141489-90 Petitioner: Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., et. al. Respondent: House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, et. al. Petition: prohibition and mandamus with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction assailing composition of House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Commission of Appointments Ponente: J. Carpio Date: November 29, 2002 Facts:
On March 3, 1995, the Party-List System Act took effect. This sought to promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system in pursuant of section2 of the Republic Act 7941. On 11 May 1998, national elections were held, which included for the first time the election of party-list group through popular vote. Fourteen representatives were elected coming from thirteen party-list groups namely APEC, ABA, COOP-NATCO, AKBAYAN, and ABANSE. Subsequently, the House constituted its House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Commission of Appointments contingent by electing representatives to these bodies. It appears that no one from the party-list group was nominated. On 18 January 2000, Senator Pimentel wrote two letters to Senate President Ople as Chairman of Commission of Appointments and Appointments and Justice Melo as chairman of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to reorganize both bodies in order to include partylist representative in accordance to Sec. 17 and 18 Art. VI of the Constitution. On 2 February 2000, Petitioners filed a petition in the Supreme Court assailing that party-list representatives should have at least 1.2 seat in the HRET and 2.4 seats in CA. They assert that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to act positively on Senator Pimentel’s letter. Hence, they invoked section 11 of Republic Act 7941. The Solicitor General’s consolidated comment shows that the party-list group only constitutes 6.36% of the House. Issues:
!"#$ the composition of the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal and &"''($$(") "* +,,"()-'#)-$ violate the Constitutional Requirement of proportional representation on the ground of the absence of party-list representatives in the said Constitutional bodies? Ruling: No. The composition of the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal and Commission of Appointments is within the prerogative of the House of Representative as
defined within constitutional limits. The House of Representatives may choose from among its district and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted in the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal and Court of Appeals in pursuant to sections 17 1 and 182 in the 1987 constitution. The said provisions are reiterated in Rules 33 and 4(a) 4 of the 1998 Rules of House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal where from the 9 members, 3 will come from the Supreme Court and the remaining 6 will come from the House. Thus, the primary recourse to the House of Representatives is necessary. The Court cannot resolve and interfere with the issues presented because it cannot violate the doctrine of separation of powers. The House of Representatives is constitutionally mandated to govern such matters unless there has been a clear violation of the Constitution. The presence of a constitutional question needs to have an actual controversy, a substantial interest in the resolution of the controversy, a controversy has been raised in the earliest reasonable opportunity and resolution must be indispensable to the final determination of the controversy. Given these circumstances, the instant case has not alleged that there was an unlawful deprivation on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners must first show that they possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to seats in the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal and Commission of Appointments. However, the Court held that the said case has already become moot and academic because elections had been held last May 14, 2001. Also, they have refrained from participating in the election process and designating nominees even up to the time they filed the petitions.
Dispositive: Petition is DISMISSED.
1
This provision states that each chamber of Congress exercises the power to choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who among their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of each chambers respective electoral tribunal. 2 This provision explicitly confers on the Senate and on the House of Representatives authority to select among their members who would fill the 12 seats of senators and 12 seats for House members in the Commission on Appointments. . This provision states that “the 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 House of Representatives who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system.” 4 This provision states that “upon the designation of the Justice of the Supreme Court and the election of the Members of the House of Representatives who are to compose the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal pursuant to Sections 17 and 19 of Article VI of the Constitution, the Tribunal shall meet for its organization and adoption of such resolutions as it may deem proper.”
