Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 588 views

    Guingona Vs Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    rm2803
    The Supreme Court ruled that converting a fractional half membership of one political party into a whole membership by adding it to another party's membership violates the proportional representation requirement for the Commission on Appointments under the Constitution. While the Commission can operate with less than 12 members, proportional representation of all parties must still be observed even if it results in fractional memberships. Giving one party an extra member by using another party's fractional membership deprives the latter of its full proportional representation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Guingona Vs Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    rm2803
    588 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that converting a fractional half membership of one political party into a whole membership by adding it to another party's membership violates the proportional representation requirement for the Commission on Appointments under the Constitution. While the Commission can operate with less than 12 members, proportional representation of all parties must still be observed even if it results in fractional memberships. Giving one party an extra member by using another party's fractional membership deprives the latter of its full proportional representation.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Guingona vs Gonzales

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that converting a fractional half membership of one political party into a whole membership by adding it to another party's membership violates the proportional representation requirement for the Commission on Appointments under the Constitution. While the Commission can operate with less than 12 members, proportional representation of all parties must still be observed even if it results in fractional memberships. Giving one party an extra member by using another party's fractional membership deprives the latter of its full proportional representation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    588 views1 page

    Guingona Vs Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    rm2803
    The Supreme Court ruled that converting a fractional half membership of one political party into a whole membership by adding it to another party's membership violates the proportional representation requirement for the Commission on Appointments under the Constitution. While the Commission can operate with less than 12 members, proportional representation of all parties must still be observed even if it results in fractional memberships. Giving one party an extra member by using another party's fractional membership deprives the latter of its full proportional representation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Guingona vs Gonzales

    Facts: The mathematical representation of each of the political parties represented in the
    Senate for the Commission on Appointments (CA) is as follows: LDP7.5; LP-PDP-LABAN--.5;
    NPC2.5; LAKAS-NUCD1.5. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half
    membership into a whole membership of one Senator by adding one-half or .5 to 7.5 to be able
    to elect respondent Senator Romulo. In so doing, one other partys fractional membership was
    correspondingly reduced leaving the latters representation in the CA to less than their
    proportional representation in the Senate.

    Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of Art. VI, Sec. 18

    Held: The respondents claim to membership in the CA by nomination and election of the LDP
    majority in the Senate is not in accordance with Sec. 18 of Art. VI of the Constitution and
    therefore violative of the same because it is not in compliance with the requirement that 12
    senators shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties
    represented therein. To disturb the resulting fractional membership of the political parties in
    the CA by adding together 2 halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule on proportional
    representation because it will give the LDP an added member in the CA by utilizing the
    fractional membership of the minority political party, who is deprived of half a representation.
    The provision of Sec. 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does
    not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on
    proportional representation.
    The Constitution does not require that the full complement of 12 senators be elected to the
    membership in the CA before it can discharge its functions and that it is not mandatory to
    elect 12 senators to the CA. The overriding directive of Art. VI, Sec. 18 is that there must be a
    proportional representation of the political parties in the membership of the CA and that the
    specification of 12 members to constitute its membership is merely an indication of the
    maximum complement allowable under the Constitution. The act of filling up the membership
    thereof cannot disregard the mandate of proportional representation of the parties even if it
    results in fractional membership in unusual situations. Even if the composition of the CA is
    fixed by the Constitution, it can perform its functions even if not fully constituted, so long as it
    has the required quorum.

    You might also like