Baguilat Jr. v. Alvarez

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 227757. July 25, 2017.]
REPRESENTATIVE TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.,

REPRESENTATIVE EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REPRESENTATIVE RAUL A.
DAZA, REPRESENTATIVE EDGAR R. ERICE, REPRESENTATIVE
EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, REPRESENTATIVE TOMASITO S.
VILLARIN, and REPRESENTATIVE GARY C. ALEJANO , petitioners, vs.
SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO
C. FARIAS, and REPRESENTATIVE DANILO E. SUAREZ , respondents.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p
Before the Court is a petition for mandamus 1 led by petitioners

Representatives Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., (Rep. Baguilat), Edcel C. Lagman (Rep.
Lagman), Raul A. Daza, Edgar R. Erice, Emmanuel A. Billones, Tomasito S. Villarin, and
Gary C. Alejano (collectively, petitioners), all members of the House of Representatives,
essentially praying that respondents Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez (Speaker Alvarez),
Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Farias (Rep. Farias), and Representative Danilo E. Suarez
(Rep. Suarez; collectively, respondents), also members of the House of
Representatives, be compelled to recognize: (a) Rep. Baguilat as the Minority Leader of
the 17th Congress of the House of Representatives; and (b) petitioners as the
legitimate members of the Minority. HTcADC
The Facts
The petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17th Congress on July 25,
2016, several news articles surfaced about Rep. Suarez's announcement that he sought
the adoption or anointment of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte's Administration as the
"Minority Leader" to lead a "cooperative minority" in the House of Representatives (or
the House), and even purportedly encamped himself in Davao shortly after the May
2016 Elections to get the endorsement of President Duterte and the majority partisans.
The petition further claims that to ensure Rep. Suarez's election as the Minority Leader,
the supermajority coalition in the House allegedly "lent" Rep. Suarez some of its
members to feign membership in the Minority, and thereafter, vote for him as the
Minority Leader. 2
On July 25, 2016, which was prior to the election of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. Farias and Rep. Jose Atienza (Rep.
Atienza) had an interchange before the Plenary, wherein the latter elicited the following
from the former: (a) all those who vote for the winning Speaker shall belong to
the Majority and those who vote for the other candidates shall belong to the
Minority; (b) those who abstain from voting shall likewise be considered part
of the Minority; and (c) the Minority Leader shall be elected by the members
of the Minority . 3 Thereafter, the Elections for the Speakership were held, "[w]ith 252
Members voting for [Speaker] Alvarez, eight [(8)] voting for Rep. Baguilat, seven [(7)]
voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and one [(1)] registering a no vote," 4 thus,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
resulting in Speaker Alvarez being the duly elected Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the 17th Congress.
Petitioners hoped that as a "long-standing tradition" of the House where the
candidate who garnered the second (2nd)-highest number of votes for Speakership
automatically becomes the Minority Leader Rep. Baguilat would be declared and
recognized as the Minority Leader. However, despite numerous follow-ups from
respondents, Rep. Baguilat was never recognized as such. 5
On August 1, 2016, one of the "abstentionists," Representative Harlin Neil Abayon,
III (Rep. Abayon), manifested before the Plenary that on July 27, 2016, those who did
not vote for Speaker Alvarez (including the 21 "abstentionists") convened and elected
Rep. Suarez as the Minority Leader. 6 Thereafter, on August 15, 2016, Rep. (now,
Majority Leader) Farias moved for the recognition of Rep. Suarez as the Minority
Leader. This was opposed by Rep. Lagman essentially on the ground that various
"irregularities" attended Rep. Suarez's election as Minority Leader, particularly: (a) that
Rep. Suarez was a member of the Majority as he voted for Speaker Alvarez, and that his
"transfer" to the Minority was irregular; and (b) that the "abstentionists" who constituted
the bulk of votes in favor of Rep. Suarez's election as Minority Leader are supposed to
be considered independent members of the House, and thus, irregularly deemed as
part of the Minority. 7 However, Rep. Lagman's opposition was overruled, and
consequently, Rep. Suarez was officially recognized as the House Minority Leader.
Thus, petitioners led the instant petition for mandamus, insisting that Rep.
Baguilat should be recognized as the Minority Leader in light of: (a) the "long-standing
tradition" in the House where the candidate who garnered the second (2nd)-highest
number of votes for Speakership automatically becomes the Minority Leader; and (b)
the irregularities attending Rep. Suarez's election to said Minority Leader position.
For his part, Rep. Suarez maintains that the election of Minority Leader is an
internal matter to the House of Representatives. Thus, absent any nding of violation of
the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion, the Court cannot interfere with such
internal matters of a coequal branch of the government. 8 In the same vein, the O ce of
the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Farias
contends, inter alia, that the election of Minority Leader is within the exclusive realm of
the House of Representatives, which the Court cannot intrude in pursuant to the
principle of separation of powers, as well as the political question doctrine. Similarly,
the OSG argues that the recognition of Rep. Suarez as the House Minority Leader was
not tainted with any violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion and, thus,
must be sustained. 9
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for resolution is whether or not respondents may be
compelled via a writ of mandamus to recognize: (a) Rep. Baguilat as the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives; and (b) petitioners as the only legitimate
members of the House Minority.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is without merit.
"Mandamus is de ned as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or
person to do the act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law speci cally enjoins as a duty resulting from an
o ce, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
right or o ce or which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." 1 0 In Special People, Inc. Foundation v.
Canda, 1 1 the Court explained that the peremptory writ of mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary course
of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one who has a
clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled . 1 2 aScITE
After a judicious study of this case, the Court nds that petitioners have no clear
legal right to the reliefs sought. Records disclose that prior to the Speakership Election
held on July 25, 2016, then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. Farias responded to a
parliamentary inquiry from Rep. Atienza as to who would elect the Minority Leader of
the House of Representatives. Rep. Farias then articulated that: (a) all those who
vote for the winning Speaker shall belong to the Majority and those who vote
for other candidates shall belong to the Minority; (b) those who abstain from
voting shall likewise be considered part of the Minority; and (c) the Minority
Leader shall be elected by the members of the Minority . 1 3 Thereafter, the
election of the Speaker of the House proceeded without any objection from any
member of Congress, including herein petitioners. Notably, the election of the Speaker
of the House is the essential and formative step conducted at the rst regular session
of the 17th Congress to determine the constituency of the Majority and Minority (and
later on, their respective leaders), considering that the Majority would be comprised of
those who voted for the winning Speaker and the Minority of those who did not. The
unobjected procession of the House at this juncture is re ected in its Journal No. 1
dated July 25, 2016, 1 4 which, based on case law, is conclusive 1 5 as to what transpired
in Congress:
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF REP. ATIENZA
Recognized by the Chair, Rep. Atienza inquired as to who would elect the
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
REMARKS OF REP. FARIAS
In reply, Rep. Farias referred to Section 8 of the Rules of the house on
membership to the Majority and the Minority. He explained that the Members
who voted for the winning candidate for the Speaker shall constitute the
Majority and shall elect from among themselves the Majority Leader, while
those who voted against the winning Speaker or did not vote at all shall belong
to the Minority and would thereafter elect their Minority Leader.
NOMINAL VOTING ON THE NOMINEES FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Thereafter, on motion of Rep. Farias, there being no objection , the
Members proceeded to the election of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. The Presiding O cer then directed Deputy Secretary General
Adasa to call the Roll for nominal voting for the Speaker of the House and
requested each Member to state the name of the candidate he or she will vote
for.
The result of the voting was as follows:
For Rep. Pantaleon D. Alvarez:
xxx xxx xxx
For Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr.
xxx xxx xxx
For Rep. Danilo E. Suarez
xxx xxx xxx
Abstained
xxx xxx xxx
With 252 Members voting for Rep. Alvarez (P.), eight voting for Rep.
Baguilat, seven voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and one registering a no
vote, the Presiding O cer declared Rep. Alvarez (P.) as the duly elected Speaker
of the House of Representatives for the 17th Congress.
COMMITTEE ON NOTIFICATION
On motion of Rep. Farias, there being no objection, the Body constituted
a committee composed of the following Members to notify Rep. Alvarez (P.) of
his election as Speaker of the House of Representatives and to escort the
Speaker-elect to the rostrum for his oath-taking: Reps. Eric D. Singson, Mercedes
K. Alvarez, Fredenil "Fred" H. Castro, Raneo "Ranie" E. Abu, Lucy T. Gomez,
Nancy A. Catamco, Elenita Milagros "Eileen" Ermita-Buhain, Rose Marie "Baby"
J. Arenas, Mylene J. Garcia-Albano, Gwendolyn F. Garcia, Marlyn L. Primicias-
Agabas, Emmeline Aglipay-Villar, Sarah Jane I. Elago and Victoria Isabel G.
Noel.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
The Presiding O cer motu proprio suspended the session at 12:43 p.m.
16
After Speaker Alvarez took his oath of o ce, he administered the oath of o ce
to all Members of the House of the 17th Congress. 1 7 On the same day, the Deputy
Speakers, and other o cers of the House (among others, the Majority Leader) were
elected and all took their respective oaths of office. 1 8
During his privilege speech delivered on July 26, 2016, which was a full day after
all the above-mentioned proceedings had already been commenced and completed,
Rep. Lagman questioned Rep. Farias' interpretation of the Rules. 1 9 Aside from the
belated timing of Rep. Lagman's query, Rep. Suarez aptly points out that the Journal for
that session does not indicate any motion made, seconded and carried to correct the
entry in the Journal of the previous session (July 25, 2016) pertinent to any recording
error that may have been made, as to indicate that in fact, a protest or objection was
raised. 2 0
Logically speaking, the foregoing circumstances would show that the House of
Representatives had effectively adopted Rep. Farias' proposal anent the new rules
regarding the membership of the Minority, as well as the process of determining who
the Minority Leader would be. More signi cantly, this demonstrates the House's
deviation from the "legal bases" of petitioners' claim for entitlement to the reliefs
sought before this Court, namely: (a) the "long-standing tradition" of automatically
awarding the Minority Leadership to the second placer in the Speakership Elections, i.e.,
Rep. Baguilat; and (b) the rule 2 1 that those who abstained in the Speakership Elections
should be deemed as independent Members of the House of Representatives, and thus,
they could not have voted for a Minority Leader in the person of Rep. Suarez. 2 2 As will
be explained hereunder, the deviation by the Lower House from the aforesaid rules is
not averse to the Constitution.
Section 16 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:
Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
aDSIHc

Each house shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
Under this provision, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be
elected by a majority vote of its entire membership. Said provision also states that the
House of Representatives may decide to have o cers other than the Speaker, and that
the method and manner as to how these o cers are chosen is something within its
sole control. 2 3 In the case of Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona , 2 4 which involved a
dispute on the rightful Senate Minority Leader during the 11th Congress (1998-2001),
this Court observed that "[w]hile the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing x
x x [a Speaker of the House of Representative,] it is, however, dead silent on the manner
of selecting the other o cers [of the Lower House]. All that the Charter says is that
'[e]ach House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.' [As such], the
method of choosing who will be such other o cers is merely a derivative of the
exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision.
Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the [House of Representatives] itself,
not by [the] Court." 2 5
Corollary thereto, Section 16 (3), Article VI 2 6 of the Constitution vests in the
House of Representatives the sole authority to, inter alia, "determine the rules of its
proceedings." These "legislative rules, unlike statutory laws, do not have the imprints of
permanence and obligatoriness during their effectivity. In fact, they 'are subject to
revocation, modi cation or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them.' Being
merely matters of procedure, their observance are of no concern to the courts, for said
rules may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body at will, upon the concurrence
of a majority [of the House of Representatives]." 2 7 Hence, as a general rule, "[t]his Court
has no authority to interfere and unilaterally intrude into that exclusive realm, without
running afoul of [C]onstitutional principles that it is bound to protect and uphold x x x.
Constitutional respect and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a coequal
branch prevents the Court from prying into the internal workings of the [House of
Representatives]." 2 8
Of course, as in any general rule, there lies an exception. While the Court in taking
jurisdiction over petitions questioning an act of the political departments of
government, will not review the wisdom, merits or propriety of such action, it will,
however, strike it down on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. 2 9 This stems from
the expanded concept of judicial power, which, under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, expressly "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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." Case law decrees that "[t]he foregoing text emphasizes the judicial
department's duty and power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of government including Congress. It is an innovation in
our political law. As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion: 3 0
[T]he judiciary is the nal arbiter on the question of whether or not a
branch of government or any of its o cials has acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty
to pass judgment on matters of this nature. 3 1
Accordingly, this Court "will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty
and authority to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of
discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by any o cer, agency,
instrumentality or department of the government." 3 2
However, as may be gleaned from the circumstances as to how the House had
conducted the questioned proceedings and its apparent deviation from its traditional
rules, the Court is hard-pressed to nd any attending grave abuse of discretion which
would warrant its intrusion in this case. By and large, this case concerns an internal
matter of a coequal, political branch of government which, absent any showing of grave
abuse of discretion, cannot be judicially interfered with. To rule otherwise would not
only embroil this Court in the realm of politics, but also lead to its own breach of the
separation of powers doctrine. 3 3 Verily, "[i]t would be an unwarranted invasion of the
prerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to set aside a legislative
action as void [only] because [it] thinks [that] the House has disregarded its own rules
of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in the
judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in that department itself." 3 4 ETHIDa
WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED .

SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Mendoza, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., see separate opinion.
Separate Opinions
LEONEN , J., concurring and dissenting :
I concur in the result.

While there was a violation of the rules of the House of Representatives, a writ of
mandamus does not lie to compel the Speaker and the House to recognize a speci c
member to be the Minority Leader.
I
Courts generally do not intervene in matters internal to Congress, such as the
manner of choosing its own o cers or leaders. Indeed, Article VI, Section 16 (1) of the
Constitution gives Congress the power to adopt its own rules:
Section 16. (1). The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
Once promulgated, any clear and patent violation of its rules will amount to grave
abuse of discretion. The House of Representatives has rules on who forms part of the
Majority or Minority, or who is considered an independent member. The rules are also
clear with respect to how a liations change. It was grave abuse of discretion for the
House of Representatives to disregard the rst, second, fourth to eighth, and last
paragraphs of Rule II, Section 8 of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Article VIII, Section 1 states:
Section 1. Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent Representative Danilo E. Suarez (Representative Suarez) wrongly
invokes Avelino v. Cuenco 1 to assail the jurisdiction of this Court. 2 Avelino resolved the
matter of whether a senator's election as Senate President was attended by a quorum.
3
It was the 1935 Constitution that governed when Avelino was decided in 1949. In
Avelino, however, four (4) of 10 Justices dissented in the belief that the case was
justiciable. 4
Justice Gregorio Perfecto (Justice Perfecto), who himself was a member of the
Constitutional Convention that drafted the 1935 Constitution, 5 stated in his dissent
that it was for this Court to determine whether the election of Senator Mariano J.
Cuenco to the Senate Presidency was attended by a quorum, thus: 6
The questions raised in the petition, although political in nature, are
justiciable because they involve the enforcement of legal precepts, such as the
provisions of the Constitution and of the rules of the Senate. 7
Justice Perfecto further stated that "[i]f the controversy should be allowed to
remain unsettled, it would be impossible to determine who is right and who is wrong,
and who really represent[ed] the Senate." 8
Acts of the legislature relating to its internal procedures may fall under this
Court's power of judicial review. In Taada v. Cuenco , 9 this Court passed upon the
Senate's election of two (2) senators to the Senate Electoral Tribunal. In Macias v.
Commission on Elections, 1 0 this Court held that the apportionment of legislative
districts is a justiciable controversy. In Cunanan v. Tan , 1 1 this Court nulli ed the
resolution of the allied Majority of the House, which declared as vacant the seats of 12
members in the Commission on Appointments and appointed other members in lieu of
those whose seats were vacated. cSEDTC
Respondents Representative Pantaleon D. Alvarez (Representative Alvarez),

Representative Rodolfo C. Farias (Representative Farias), 1 2 and Representative
Suarez 1 3 substantially quote this Court's ruling in Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona 1 4 to
argue that the matters raised by petitioners are "non-justiciable precisely because they
belong to the realm of party politics[.]" 1 5 Representative Suarez even declares that
Defensor-Santiago is "on all fours" in this case. 1 6 The ponencia similarly relies on the
pronouncements in Defensor-Santiago.
However, in Defensor-Santiago: 1 7
It is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether indeed
the Senate or its o cials committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely
abused their discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives. 1 8
Defensor-Santiago involves a dispute on who was the rightful Senate Minority
Leader during the 11th Congress (1998-2001). The Senate was composed of 23
members, majority of whom were from Laban ng Masang Pilipino (LAMP) with 10
members. 1 9 Seven (7) senators were from Lakas-National Union of Christian
Democrats-United Muslim Democrats of the Philippines (Lakas-NUCD-UMDP) were
considered as the Minority, while the other senators one (1) from the Liberal Party,
one (1) from Aksyon Demokrasya, one (1) from the People's Reform Party, one (1) from
Gabay Bayan, and two (2) without party affiliations were considered as independents.
20

Senators Marcelo B. Fernan and Francisco S. Tatad ran for Senate President.
Twenty senators, who constituted the Majority or more than half of the Senate
members, voted for Senator Fernan. Meanwhile, only two (2) senators, including
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Sen. Defensor-Santiago), voted for Senator Tatad
as Senate President. 2 1
The seven (7) senators who constituted the Minority then recognized Senator
Teo sto T. Guingona (Senator Guingona) as Minority Leader. However, Senators Tatad
and Defensor-Santiago sought the ouster of Senator Guingona, alleging that Senator
Tatad, who lost the race for Senate presidency, should have been the rightful Minority
Leader. 2 2
This Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Senate validly recognized
Senator Guingona as Minority Leader. 2 3 Senators Tatad and Defensor-Santiago's
allegations had no basis in the Constitution, the statutes, the Senate Rules, and the
parliamentary practices of the Senate itself. 2 4 Thus:
[T]he interpretation proposed by petitioners [Senators Tatad and Santiago] nds
no clear support from the Constitution, the laws, the Rules of the Senate or even
from practices of the Upper House. 2 5 (Emphasis supplied)
This led to this Court's conclusion that:
[I]n the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or speci c rules , this
Court is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of
the Senate relative thereto. 2 6
This Court held that it had no jurisdiction to intervene as there were "no speci c,
operable norms and standards" by which the issue could be resolved. 2 7 Simply put,
Defensor-Santiago does not involve any violation there was no constitutional or
statutory provision, Senate rules, or parliamentary practice that would make the
defeated candidate for Senate presidency ipso facto the Senate Minority Leader. 2 8
In this case, there are existing Rules of the House of Representatives that
disqualify respondent Representative Suarez from being the Minority Leader and
exclude the 20 abstaining members from Minority membership. There is also an
established parliamentary practice of the House of Representatives, evidencing their
current collective interpretation, which makes Representative Teddy Brawner Baguilat,
Jr. (Representative Baguilat) of the Lone District of Ifugao Province automatically the
Minority Leader.
II
The 1973 Constitution under Ferdinand E. Marcos abolished Congress, changed
the presidential form of government to a modi ed parliamentary form of government,
and instituted a unicameral legislature known as the National Assembly or Batasang
Pambansa. 2 9 During the 1986 EDSA Revolution, his ouster ushered in new political
institutions. The 1987 Constitution abolished the unicameral legislature and installed a
bicameral Congress, which is composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. SDAaTC
For nearly three (3) decades since the promulgation of 1987 Constitution, the
House of Representatives has practiced the tradition of having the second placer for
House Speaker automatically become the Minority Leader. 3 0 From what was then the
8th Congress (1987-1992) to the 16th Congress (2013-2016), this practice was
enshrined not only in the Rules that the House adopted for all of its sessions but also in
the traditions and precedents of the House of Representatives itself. 3 1 Petitioners
quote the Body's ruling during the 11th Congress:
"Rules, traditions and precedents of the House provide that the losing
candidate for Speaker with the second highest number of votes becomes the
Minority Leader." 3 2
For instance, during the 13th Congress, four (4) candidates ran for House
Speaker. 3 3 Representative Jose De Venecia, Jr. (Representative De Venecia) bested the
other candidates, namely, Representative Francis Escudero (Representative Escudero),
Representative Jacinto Paras, and Representative Ronaldo Zamora (Representative
Zamora), in the bid for House speakership. The second placer, then Representative
Escudero, automatically became the Minority Leader. 3 4
Within these past 30 years, there were only two (2) instances when the runner-up
for House speakership did not sit as Minority Leader. During the 9th Congress, second
placer Representative Jose Cojuangco gave up his Minority Leadership in favor of his
party mate, Representative Hernando Perez. During the 14th Congress, Representative
De Venecia ran unopposed, leaving out the possibility of having any second placer
become the Minority Leader. 3 5
Both circumstances do not apply here: the second placer, Representative
Baguilat, has not given up his seat in favor of his party mate, and the winning speaker,
Representative Alvarez, did not run unopposed.
An unopposed candidate for Speaker during the 14th Congress presented a
challenge for the determination of a Minority Leader. Thus, the House amended the
Rules of the 14th Congress so that the Minority Leader could be voted for separately.
3 6 Under the amendment, "[t]he Minority Leader shall be elected by the members of the
Minority and can be changed by a majority vote of all the Minority members at any
time." 3 7 The Minority members elected Representative Zamora as the Minority Leader.
38
The express provision on electing the Minority Leader during the 14th Congress
did not prevent the House from continuing the practice of making the second placer
ipso facto its Minority Leader during the subsequent 15th and 16th Congresses. Thus,
the current interpretation is that when there are several candidates for Speaker, the
same election is also the selection for the Minority Leader. Those who voted for the
second placer became the Minority.
Thus, the 15th Congress (2010-2013) adopted the Rules of the 14th Congress.
The long-standing parliamentary practice constituting the interpretation of the Rules of
the House prevailed. Three (3) members then contended for speakership:
Representative Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. (Representative Belmonte), Representative
Edcel C. Lagman (Representative Lagman), and Representative Martin Romualdez
(Representative Romualdez). 3 9 Representative Belmonte won as Speaker while
Representative Lagman placed second in the election. 4 0 The House gave weight to
tradition and precedent and recognized second placer Representative Lagman as its
Minority Leader. 4 1
The same thing happened during the 16th Congress (2013-2016), 4 2 where the
House respected the tradition and interpretation by the body that the second placer will
be the House Minority Leader. 4 3
This is a clear indication that the House itself accords due reverence to its
established practices and traditions as its collective interpretation of its rules. Where
there can be an ambiguity, practice and tradition should also be read into its Rules. Rule
XXV, Section 161 of the Rules of the House of Representatives also provides that "[t]he
parliamentary practices of . . . the House of Representatives . . . shall be suppletory to
these Rules."
The House collectively considers the votes for the second placer for House
Speaker as the votes of the Minority for its Minority Leader. Insofar as having the
second placer automatically become the Minority Leader, this parliamentary practice
was not merely suppletory to the Rules of the 15th and 16th Congresses rather, it
took primacy over the Rules themselves. There is no reason to treat the 17th Congress
differently. Like the 15th and 16th Congresses, the 17th Congress involves a race
among many candidates for Speaker and not simply one (1) unopposed candidate as in
the 14th Congress. acEHCD
III
On July 25, 2016, the House opened the First Regular Session of the 17th
Congress (2016-2019). 4 4 The Presiding O cer 4 5 designated Representative Farias
as Acting Floor Leader. 4 6 Upon Representative Farias' motion, the Body adopted the
Rules of the 16th Congress as the Provisional Rules of the House of Representatives
(Rules), 4 7 with the minor amendment particularly related only to the dress code. 4 8 The
Rules took effect on the date of its adoption on July 25, 2016. 4 9
There was no amendment relating to the process of selecting the Minority
Leader.
The Body then proceeded with the period of nominations for the position of
Speaker of the 17th Congress. 5 0 Three (3) persons were nominated: respondent
Representative Alvarez, respondent Representative Suarez, and petitioner
Representative Baguilat. 5 1 Petitioner Representative Raul A. Daza (Representative
Daza) put on record that Representative Baguilat's endeavor for House speakership
"was the rst time that a member who belongs to the so-called cultural minority was
nominated to the highest office of the chamber." 5 2
After the Body closed the period for nominations, Representative Jose L. Atienza
(Representative Atienza) inquired about the election of the Minority Leader of the
House since the circumstances were similar to those in the 16th Congress, the Rules of
which the 17th Congress adopted at the start of the plenary sessions. 5 3
During the 16th Congress, there were also three (3) candidates for House
Speaker. The second placer automatically became the Minority Leader, and all those
who voted for the third candidate for Speaker became independents. 5 4 Representative
Atienza wanted to know if the same practice would apply to the 17th Congress. 5 5
Representative Farias replied by referring to Rule II, Section 8 of the Rules of the
House of Representatives. 5 6 The rst, second, and last paragraphs of Rule II, Section 8
provide:
Members who vote for the winning candidate for Speaker shall constitute
the Majority in the House and they shall elect from among themselves the
Majority Leader . . .
The Minority Leader shall be elected by the Members of the Minority and
can be changed, at any time, by a majority vote of all the Minority Members.
xxx xxx xxx
Members who choose not to align themselves with the Majority or the
Minority shall be considered as independent Members of the House.
Interpreting Rule II, Section 8, Representative Farias explained to Representative
Atienza that:
[T]he Members who voted for the winning candidate for the Speaker shall
constitute the Majority and shall elect from among themselves the Majority
Leader, while those who voted against the winning Speaker or did not vote at all
shall belong to the Minority and would thereafter elect their Minority Leader. 5 7
There was no vote taken to confirm the interpretation of Representative Farias.
The House then proceeded to elect the House Speaker. 5 8 A total of 252
members voted for Representative Alvarez, eight (8) voted for Representative Baguilat,
seven (7) voted for Representative Suarez, 21 abstained including Representative
Alvarez, and one (1) registered a "no vote." 5 9 Representative Suarez, who himself ran
for House Speaker, voted for Representative Alvarez. 6 0
Representative Alvarez was declared duly-elected Speaker of the 17th Congress,
Representative Baguilat came in second, and Representative Suarez trailed behind
them. 6 1
More than half of the total House membership who voted for House Speaker
Alvarez, including Representative Suarez, became Majority members. 6 2
In a letter 6 3 dated July 26, 2016, Representative Suarez clari ed to Speaker
Alvarez that he voted for Speaker Alvarez in line with the alleged practice of not voting
for oneself. He also revealed to the House Speaker his desire to change his a liation in
order to become the Minority Leader. Representative Suarez then sought permission
from the Majority to be accepted in the Minority. On the same day, Majority Leader
Representative Farias granted Representative Suarez's application to become a
Minority member. 6 4
Representative Suarez did not ask leave from the Minority to become its
member.
A plenary session was held on July 26, 2016. Representative Lagman took the
oor to avert that second placer Representative Baguilat should automatically be the
Minority Leader. 6 5 Thus:
Like in the 16th Congress when Representative Zamora won by three
votes over Representative Romualdez, Representative Zamora was
automatically recognized as the Minority Leader, and there was no need for an
election among the Minority Members [in line with parliamentary practice]. 6 6
According to Representative Lagman:
The validity of this practice has never been questioned.
The practice has been invariably adopted and acquiesced in from one
Congress to another that it has acquired the character of law or binding rule on
the Majority, Minority, or the independent Members of the House of
Representatives. 6 7
Representative Lagman was also the second placer during the 15th Congress; as
such, he automatically obtained the position of Minority Leader. 6 8 He stated that the
customary practice of the House is part of the Rules of the House. 6 9
Likewise, Representative Lagman corrected Representative Suarez's statement
that candidates for House Speaker were prohibited from voting for themselves as
Sp eak er. 7 0 He reminded Representative Suarez that in the 16th Congress,
Representatives Zamora and Romualdez, who both contended for the speakership,
voted for themselves as House Speaker. 7 1 SDHTEC
Representative Lagman further asserted that Representative Farias'

interpretation of Rule II, Section 8 violated the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the
House of Representatives. 7 2 He then read the relevant paragraphs of Rule II, Section 8
that distinguish among the Majority, the Minority, and the independent members of the
House. 7 3
Citing Rule II, Section 8, Representative Lagman stated that "[m]embers who
choose not to align themselves with the Majority or the Minority shall be considered as
independent Members of the House[.]" Thus, the 20 abstaining members, as well as the
one (1) who registered a no-vote for House Speaker, 7 4 are neither with the Majority nor
the Minority. 7 5
Petitioner Representative Edgar R. Erice (Representative Erice) also made a
manifestation and a parliamentary inquiry. 7 6 He revealed having received an invitation
for a meeting to elect a Minority Leader from the Majority bloc. 7 7 According to
Representative Erice, the "[r]epresentatives who expressed their support to the
Speaker. Now, they are calling themselves part of the Minority." 7 8
For his part, Representative Farias faulted Representative Erice for not objecting
to the former's opinion the previous day in response to Representative Atienza's query
on the composition of Minority membership. 7 9 Representative Farias claimed that
such non-objection amounted to "estoppel by silence." 8 0 He also defended the
Majority's distribution of the Minority's invitation for the special election for the Minority
Leader, stating that all that happens in the plenary must have the Majority Leader's
permission. 8 1
On July 27, 2016, the election for Minority Leader was held. 8 2 Most of the House
representatives who abstained from voting for House Speaker voted for Representative
Suarez as Minority Leader: 8 3
Name of Representative Party Affiliation Vote for Vote for the
the Minority
Majority Floor Leader
Floor During the
Leader July 27, 2016
Minority
Leader
Election
1. Abayon, Harlin Neil III AANGAT Abstain Suarez
J. TAYO/Nacionalista
Party (NP)
2. Aggabao, Ma. Lourdes National People's Abstain Abstain
R. Coalition (NPC)
3. Alonte-Naguiat, Marlyn PDP-LABAN Abstain Suarez
B.
4. Aragones, Sol PDP-LABAN Abstain Vote not
mentioned
in the
Court's
record
5. Arcillas, Arlene B. PDP-LABAN Abstain Suarez
6. Atienza, Lito Buhay Suarez Suarez
7. Bagatsing, Cristal L. PDP-LABAN Abstain Suarez
8. Batocabe, Rodel M. AKO-BICOL Party Abstain Abstain
List
9. Bernos, Joseph Sto. PDP-LABAN Abstain Suarez
Nio B.
10. Bertiz, Aniceto "John" ACTS-OFW Party Abstain Suarez
III D. List
11. Bravo, Anthony M. COOP-NATCO Abstain Suarez
Party List
12. Campos, Luis Makati, 2nd Suarez Suarez
District
13. Cerafica, Arnel M. PDP-LABAN Abstain Suarez
14. Chavez, Cecilia BUTIL Party List Abstain Suarez
Leonila V.
15. Co, Christopher S. AKO-BICOL Party Abstain Vote not
List mentioned
in the
Court's
record
16. Cortuna, Julieta R. A TEACHER Party Abstain Suarez
List
17. Del Rosario, Monsour Makati, 1st District Suarez Suarez
18. De Vera, Eugene ABS Party List Abstain Suarez
Michael B.
19. Eusebio, Richard C. Nacionalista Party Abstain Suarez
(NP)
20. Ferriol-Pascual, KALINGA Party List Abstain Suarez
Abigail Faye C.
21. Garbin, Alfredo Jr. A. AKO-BICOL Party Abstain Suarez
List
22. Garcia, Jose Enrique National Unity Abstain Vote not
III S. Party (NUP) mentioned
in the
Court's
record
23. Garin, Sharon S. AAMBIS-OWA Abstain Abstain
Party List
24. Lee, Delphine AGRI Suarez Suarez
25. Roque, Harry Kabayan Suarez Suarez
26. Salon, Orestes AGRI Suarez Suarez
27. Suarez, Danilo Quezon City, 3rd Farias Suarez
District
28. Villaraza-Suarez ALONA Suarez Suarez 8 4
Petitioners point out that as early as May 23, 2016, Representative Suarez
already sought for his anointment as Minority Leader in order to lead a "cooperative"
opposition in the House. 8 5 Thus:
29. Shortly after the 09 May 2016 elections, Rep. Danilo Suarez
encamped in Davao City, the then center of political activities and maneuverings
of President-elect Rodrigo R. Duterte and his men.
30. Rep. Suarez publicly and unabashedly announced that he was
seeking the adoption or anointment by the Duterte administration as [M[inority
[L]eader in the House of Representatives because he would be leading a
"cooperative" minority . . .
xxx xxx xxx
32. In the weeks preceding the opening of the 17th Congress on 25
July 2016, incessant reports were a oat, which were not seriously denied, that
the supermajority coalition would lend to Rep. Suarez some of the majority
partisans to beef up his small number of minority congressmen to assure his
election as the House Minority Leader. 8 6
According to petitioners, six (6) of those who abstained belong to Partido
Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-LABAN), the political party of President
Duterte, Speaker Alvarez, and Majority Leader Farias, 8 7 while the other abstaining
members belong to political parties that "are all allied with the [House] supermajority."
88
Petitioners question how the 20 abstaining members were only those with
surnames starting from "A" to "G" 8 9 and not anyone else from "H," such as
Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez, to "Z," such as Rep. Manuel F. Zubiri. For
petitioners, the "pre-arranged" alphabetical sequence of the abstaining members'
names easily monitored their votes, and thus, assured Representative Suarez's election
as Minority Leader. 9 0 Thus:
44. The alphabetical sequence of the "abstentionists" started with
letter "A" (Abayon) and ended with the letter "G" (Garin) [wa]s pre-arranged
because the infusion of 20 Representatives was deemed su cient by the
leadership of the supermajority to assure respondent Rep. Suarez's victory as
"minority leader." "A" to "G" were also considered easy to monitor. 9 1
On August 1, 2016, Representative Harlin Neil Abayon III (Representative Abayon)
manifested to the Body that the meeting on July 27, 2016 resulted in the election of
Representative Suarez as Minority Leader. Representative Juan Pablo Bondoc moved to
refer Representative Abayon's manifestation to the Committee on Rules. 9 2 AScHCD
Representative Rodante D. Marcoleta (Representative Marcoleta) stood on a

point of order against Representative Abayon's manifestation, arguing that it violated
Rule II, Section 8 of the Provisional Rules of the House. Representative Marcoleta
stated that the members who attended the election for Minority Leader on July 27,
2016 were the same members who abstained during the election for House Speaker.
Their abstention aligned themselves with neither the Majority nor the Minority, thereby
making them independent and disqualified from voting for a Minority Leader. 9 3
Representative Marcoleta also explained that the non-objection to
Representative Farias' erroneous interpretation of Rule II, Section 8 on July 25, 2016
does not negate the transgression of the Rules. 9 4
In a letter dated August 1, 2016 to Speaker Alvarez, Representative Lagman
underscored that no estoppel attaches to a wrong interpretation of the law, especially
as such erroneous opinion "was not even submitted for adoption by the House or for a
ruling from the Presiding Officer." 9 5 In Representative Lagman's letter:
3. The 20 Representatives who abstained from voting for or against
the eventual winner as Speaker are indubitably considered independent
members of the House pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 8 of Rule II.
The remarks on 25 July 2016 of then acting 9 6 Floor Leader Rodolfo C. Farias
is erroneous when he opined that all those who did not vote for the Speaker
belong to the Minority, including all those who abstained. This remark is
contrary to the unmistakable language and spirit of the aforecited rule. Verily,
there is no estoppel in favor of an erroneous interpretation which was not even
submitted for adoption by the House or for a ruling from the Presiding Officer.
4. Consequently, the said 20 abstaining Representatives did not have
any authority to call for a "special election" for "minority leader," much more
elect on 27 July 2016 a "minority leader" in the person of Rep. Suarez. 9 7
(Emphasis supplied)
Representative Lagman reiterated that, under the last paragraph of Rule II,
Section 8, those who abstained are not part of either the Majority or the Minority. 9 8
Therefore, the 20 abstaining Members lacked the authority to even elect a Minority
Leader. 9 9 Representative Lagman also alleged that the so-called "abstentionists" were
Majority allies 1 0 0 who engaged in a "sham aggrupation." 1 0 1 These members were part
of a coalition with PDP-LABAN or were a liated with political parties composing the
House supermajority. 1 0 2
Thus, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules and accepted
tradition, the authentic Minority Leader should have been Representative Baguilat, 1 0 3
who obtained more votes than Representative Suarez did in the contest for House
Speaker. 1 0 4
Finally, Representative Lagman informed Speaker Alvarez that "Rep. Suarez
disquali ed himself from aspiring for the position of Minority Leader." 1 0 5 In voting for
Speaker Alvarez, Representative Suarez became part of the Majority, pursuant to the
first paragraph of Rule II, Section 8. 1 0 6
Representative Lagman's letter to Speaker Alvarez dated August 1, 2016 was
subsequently made a part of the Journal of the House on the same day. 1 0 7 Neither
Speaker Alvarez nor Majority Leader Farias officially replied to his letter. 1 0 8
Petitioners aver that after Representative Suarez's "sham" 1 0 9 election as
Minority Leader, 10 of the abstaining representatives returned to the supermajority
coalition. 1 1 0 These 10 representatives addressed their requests to transfer to the
Majority, as follows:
1. Representatives Sharon S. Garin (AAMBIS-OWA Party List) 1 1 1 and Ma.
Lourdes R. Aggabao (NPC) 1 1 2 on August 1, 2016;
2. Representatives Len B. Alonte-Naguiat (PDP-LABAN), 1 1 3 Sol Aragones
(PDP-LABAN), 1 1 4 Rodel M. Batocabe (AKO BICOL Party List), 1 1 5 Joseph
Sto. Nio B. Bernos (PDP-LABAN), 1 1 6 Christopher S. Co (AKO BICOL Party
List), 1 1 7 and Jose Enrique S. Garcia III (NUP) 1 1 8 on August 2, 2016;
3. Representative Cristal L. Bagatsing (PDP-LABAN) on August 3, 2016; 1 1 9
and
4. Representative Arnel M. Cerafica (PDP-LABAN) 1 2 0 on August 8, 2016.
Majority Leader Farias accepted 1 2 1 all their requests to transfer or return to the
Majority.
On August 15, 2016, the Body elected Majority members to various
commissions and committees. 1 2 2 The 10 "returning" members received what
petitioners describe as "plum positions" ranging from Deputy Speaker to Member of
the House Electoral Tribunal, Committee Chairpersons, and Committee Vice-
Chairpersons. 1 2 3 Thus:
1. Sharon Garin Deputy Speaker
2. Rodel M. Batocabe Member of the House Electoral Tribunal
(HRET)
3. Sol Aragones Chairperson, Committee on Population
and Family Relations
Vice Chairperson, Committee on Women
and Gender Equality
4. Christopher S. Co Chairperson, Special Committee on
Climate Change
5. Ma. Lourdes R. Vice Chairperson, Committee on
Aggabao Population and Family Relations
Vice Chairperson, Committee on Rural
Development
6. Len B. Alonte-Naguiat Vice Chairperson, Committee on Health
Vice Chairperson, Committee on Women
and Gender Equality
7. Joseph B. Bernos Vice Chairperson, Committee on Public
Order and Safety
8. Jose Enrique S. Garcia Vice Chairperson, Committee on Energy
Vice Chairperson, Committee on Health
9. Cristal L. Bagatsing Vice Chairperson, Committee on Basic
Education and Culture
Member, Committee on Appropriations
Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs
10. Arnel M. Cerafica Vice Chairperson, Committee on Health
Vice Chairperson, Committee on Public
Works and Highway
Representative Farias then moved to recognize Representative Suarez as
Minority Leader. 1 2 4 Before the Body could act on the motion, Representative Lagman
asked why the Body was recognizing Representative Suarez as Minority Leader when
the latter voted for the winning House Speaker. 1 2 5 AcICHD
Representative Farias replied that Representative Suarez already transferred to

the Minority 1 2 6 upon securing the permission of the Majority Leader. 1 2 7
Representative Lagman differed, stating that if one wanted to become a member
of the Minority, the "letter of application should [have] be[en] addressed to the Minority
Leader, and not to the Speaker or Majority Leader." 1 2 8 To support his statement,
Representative Lagman read Rule II, Section 8 and directed the Body's attention to the
operative phrase, "as the case may be." 1 2 9 Thus:
A Member may transfer from the Majority to the Minority, or vice versa, at
any time: Provided, That:
a. The concerned Member submits a written request to transfer to the
Majority or Minority, through the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the
case may be. The Secretary General shall be furnished a copy of the
request to transfer;
b. The Majority or Minority, as the case may be, accepts the concerned
Member in writing; and
c. The Speaker shall be furnished by the Majority or the Minority
Leaders, as the case may be, a copy of the acceptance in writing of
the concerned Member. (Emphasis supplied)

The Chair 1 3 0 brushed aside Representative Lagman's objection and held that
Representative Suarez had already transferred to the Minority. 1 3 1 Representative
Lagman appealed 1 3 2 the ruling of the Chair 1 3 3 but his appeal was denied. 1 3 4
Representative Marcoleta next raised a parliamentary inquiry on who were
considered independent members of the House under the last paragraph of Rule II,
Section 8. 1 3 5 He reiterated that the Body did not adopt Representative Farias'
erroneous opinion on July 25, 2016, 1 3 6 which categorized the House members only
into the Majority and Minority without mentioning independent membership. 1 3 7
The Chair recognized Representative Suarez as Minority Floor Leader,
notwithstanding the questions raised. 1 3 8 Representative Suarez and other members of
the Minority were then elected into various offices and House committees. 1 3 9
Petitioners Representatives Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., Edcel C. Lagman, Raul A.
Daza, Edgar R. Erice, Emmanuel A. Billones, Tomasito S. Villarin, and Gary C. Alejano
(petitioners) have since sought recourse against respondents House Speaker
Pantaleon D. Alvarez, Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Farias, and Representative Danilo E.
Suarez (respondents) before this Court through this Petition for Mandamus. 1 4 0
For resolution are the issues on whether the House leadership committed grave
abuse of discretion in installing Representative Danilo E. Suarez as Minority Leader, and
whether respondents may be compelled to recognize Representative Teddy Brawner
Baguilat, Jr. as Minority Leader.
IV
The ponencia cites Arroyo v. De Venecia 1 4 1 to state that this Court cannot set
aside a legislative action as void simply because it thinks that the House violated the
latter's internal rules. The question in Arroyo was whether Republic Act No. 8240 (Sin
Tax Law) was null and void as it was passed despite a senator's failure to question the
presence of a quorum. 1 4 2 This Court dismissed that case because there was no grave
abuse of discretion the quorum was actually met:
To repeat, the claim is not that there was no quorum but only that Rep. [Joker P.]
Arroyo was effectively prevented from questioning the presence of a quorum.
Rep. Arroyo's earlier motion to adjourn for lack of quorum had already been
defeated, as the roll call established the existence of a quorum. The question of
quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is obviously
present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House. 1 4 3
In contrast, the petitioners have ably established the presence of grave abuse of
discretion. Truly, the justiciability of the issue is anchored on the capricious, whimsical,
and arbitrary judgment committed by respondents in neglecting and refusing to
recognize Representative Baguilat as the ipso facto Minority Leader, in accordance with
a long-established parliamentary practice and Rules of the House of Representatives.
There was also grave abuse of discretion in counting the votes of Representative
Suarez and those of the independent members in the election for Minority Leader. On
July 27, 2016, the day of the election for Minority Leader, Representative Suarez himself
belonged to the Majority and was thus disquali ed from being the Minority Leader.
Likewise, the 20 abstaining members and the one (1) who registered a no-vote were
independent members. Not being part of the Minority, these independent members
were disqualified from electing a Minority Leader. TAIaHE
Rule II, Section 8 of the Rules states in full:

the Majority in the House and they shall elect from among themselves the
Majority Leader. The Majority Leader may be changed, at any time, by a
majority vote of all the Majority Members.
The Majority and Minority shall elect such number of Deputy Majority
and Minority Leaders as the rules provide.
the concerned Member.
In case the Majority or the Minority declines such request to transfer, the
concerned Member shall be considered an independent Member of the House.
In any case, whether or not the request to transfer is accepted, all
committee assignments and memberships given the concerned Member by the
Majority or Minority, as the case may be, shall be automatically forfeited.
Minority shall be considered as independent Members of the House. They may,
however, choose to join the Majority or Minority upon written request to and
approval thereof by the Majority or Minority, as the case may be.
Rule II, Section 8 has two (2) major components: (a) the rst, second, and last
paragraphs provide for the different kinds of members of the House of
Representatives, and (b) the fourth to eighth paragraphs provide for the manner by
which a Majority, Minority, or independent member may change affiliation.
The rst paragraph of Rule II, Section 8 states that the representatives who vote
for the winning candidate for Speaker shall constitute the Majority. The second
paragraph declares that the Minority Leader shall be elected by Members of the
Minority. The last paragraph con rms that "[m]embers who choose not to align
themselves with the Majority or the Minority [ i.e., those who abstained or registered a
no-vote] shall be considered as independent Members of the House." Thus:
th e Majority in the House and they shall elect from among themselves the
Majority Leader . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Minority shall be considered as independent Members of the House. (Emphasis
supplied)

Even the o cial website of the House of Representatives gives notice to the
public that the Minority members are only those who voted for the Speaker's opponent
but do not include those who abstained from voting:
Those who voted for the Speaker belong to the Majority while those who voted
for the Speaker's opponent belong to the Minority. Representatives belonging to
the Majority choose the Majority Floor Leader who automatically chairs the
Committee on Rules, and those in the Minority choose the Minority Floor Leader.
144
It is a basic legal principle that those not included in the enumeration are deemed
excluded. 1 4 5 A person or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have
been omitted intentionally. 1 4 6 As the de nition of Minority omitted those
representatives who abstained or opted for a "no-vote," then they are deemed
intentionally omitted from the definition.
Representative Farias himself mentioned the importance of following the Rules.
According to him, "[a] law or a regulation is not repealed by non-observance. It can only
be repealed by express repeal. Kung hindi sinusunod iyan, batas pa rin iyan." 1 4 7
Ironically, in insisting on his July 25, 2016 interpretation 1 4 8 of Rule II, Section 8,
the Majority Leader was outing the Rules himself. He cannot simply cling to a
mistaken opinion without running afoul of the express provisions of the Rules. Neither
Representative Farias' erroneous interpretation of Rule II, Section 8 nor petitioners'
alleged silence cured the violation of the Rules and parliamentary practice of the House.
First, the records do not show that Representative Farias' own interpretation of
Rule II, Section 8 was submitted for adoption by the requisite number of members or
was ruled upon by the Presiding O cer on July 25, 2016. Rather, the records show that
after giving his own interpretation of Rule II, Section 8, Representative Farias simply
moved to proceed to the election for House Speaker without asking for a vote on
whether the Body would adopt his opinion or not.
The House of Representatives Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016 narrates the
events that transpired:
DESIGNATION OF REP. FARIAS AS ACTING FLOOR LEADER
In the interest of orderly proceedings, the Presiding O cer designated
Representative Rodolfo C. Farias of the First District of Ilocos Norte as Acting
Floor Leader. cDHAES
ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE, AS AMENDED

On motion of Rep. Farias, there being no objection, the Body adopted
the Rules of the 16th Congress as the Provisional Rules of the House to govern
its proceedings until the adoption of the Rules for the 17th Congress, subject to
the amendment that the rst sentence of Section 94, Rule 12, entitled, "Conduct
and Attire During Sessions and Committee Meetings," shall read as follows:
MEMBERS SHALL WEAR PROPER ATTIRE WHICH IS BARONG FILIPINO OR
COAT AND TIE OR BUSINESS ATTIRE FOR MEN, AND FILIPINA DRESS OR
BUSINESS SUIT FOR WOMEN, AND OBSERVE PROPER DECORUM DURING
SESSIONS AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
PERIOD OF NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF THE SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE
In accordance with the constitutional duty of the House to organize and
receive the President's State of the Nation Address later in the day, on motion of
Rep. Farias, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the period of
nominations for the position of Speaker of the House.
POINT OF CLARIFICATION OF REP. ATIENZA
Upon recognition by the Chair, Rep. Jose L. Atienza Jr. said that he
wanted to ask clari catory questions on the election process. Rep. Farias said
that he will entertain the same after the nomination period which the Chair
thereafter adopted.
POINT OF ORDER OF REP. FUENTEBELLA
Recognized by the Chair, Rep. Arnulfo P. Fuentebella asked that the
Chamber proceed to the oath-taking of the Members before the election of the
Speaker, as was stated in the Order of Business.
RULING OF THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled that in accordance with (1) parliamentary tradition and
practice and (2) the amended Rules of the House that the 17th Congress had
adopted, it is the Speaker of the House that administers the oath to the new
Members. She added that the oath-taking before the Speaker at the
commencement of the First Regular Session is an a rmation of the oaths they
had already taken before noontime of June 30, 2016. She explained that in
accordance with several Supreme Court decisions, the Members had already
complied with the three requirements for membership into the Chamber, namely,
a valid certi cate of proclamation; oath-taking before any duly authorized
o cer; and assumption into o ce without any question by noontime of June
30[,] 2016. She also stressed that the House's highest constitutional privilege
was to organize itself before proceeding with its business.
MOTION OF REP. FUENTEBELLA
As he appealed the ruling of the Chair, Rep. Fuentebella said that it was
anomalous for the House to elect the Speaker before the oath-taking of the
Members. He then asked for a suspension of session as well as a voting on his
point of order.
Upon recognition by the Chair, Rep. Farias read into the records Section
1, Rule 1 of the aforecited House Rules as he observed that Rep. Fuentebella did
not cite any rule that was being violated.
Thereupon, Rep. Farias moved that the Body recognize Rep. Feliciano
Belmonte Jr. from the Fourth District of Quezon City for his nomination speech.
MANIFESTATION OF REP. FUENTEBELLA
For his part, Rep. Fuentebella said that he will discuss his position at the
proper time.
NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. BELMONTE (F.)
In nominating Rep. Pantaleon D. Alvarez from the First District of Davao
del Norte to be the Speaker of the 17th Congress, Rep. Belmonte cited his
personal and professional relationship with the former who was a Member of
the 11th Congress and then the Secretary of Transportation and
Communications under the administration of former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo . . .
SECONDING NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. SINGSON
xxx xxx xxx
SECONDING NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. ALVAREZ (M.)
xxx xxx xxx
SECONDING NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. CASTRO
xxx xxx xxx
SECONDING NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. ABU
xxx xxx xxx
NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. ROQUE
Upon motion of Rep. Farias, the Chair recognized Rep. H. Harry L. Roque
Jr. from Kabayan Party-List for his nomination speech for Rep. Danilo E. Suarez
from the Third District of Quezon to be the Speaker of the 17th Congress . . .
SECONDING NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. CAMPOS
xxx xxx xxx
NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. DAZA
Rep. Daza, a member of the Liberal Party for half a century and its
President for ve challenging years, nominated Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr.
from the Lone District of Ifugao Province as Speaker of the House of
Representatives. For the record, he took pride in emphasizing that this was the
rst time that a Member who belongs to the so-called cultural minority was
nominated to the highest o ce of the Chamber. He thereafter recalled Rep.
Baguilat's political career and enumerated his achievements as a Governor and
Representative of Ifugao Province . . .
SECONDING NOMINATION SPEECH OF REP. VILLARIN
xxx xxx xxx
TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD FOR NOMINATIONS
On motion of Rep. Farias, there being no other nominations and there
being no objection, the Body closed the period of nominations.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF REP. ATIENZA
Recognized by the Chair, Rep. Atienza inquired as to who would elect the
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
In reply, Rep. Farias referred to Section 8 of the Rules of the House on
membership to the Majority and the Minority. He explained that the Members
who voted for the winning candidate for the Speaker shall constitute the
Majority and shall elect from among themselves the Majority Leader, while
those who voted against the winning Speaker or did not vote at all shall belong
to the Minority and would thereafter elect their Minority Leader.
NOMINAL VOTING ON THE NOMINEES FOR SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE
Thereafter, on motion of Rep. Farias, there being no objection, the
Members proceeded to the election of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. The Presiding O cer then directed Deputy Secretary General
Adasa to call the Roll for nominal voting for the Speaker of the House and
requested each Member to state the name of the candidate he or she will vote
for. 1 4 9 (Emphasis supplied) ASEcHI
Second, while the House of Representatives may suspend or amend their rules,
speci c procedures must be followed for any suspension or amendment to be
considered valid. Under Rule XIV, Sections 111, 112, and 114:
Section 111. Authority to Move. Only the Committee on Rules can move
for the suspension of the rules.
Section 112. Vote Requirement. A voting of two-thirds (2/3) of the
Members present, there being a quorum, is required to suspend any rule.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 114. Debate; Effect of Suspension. A motion to suspend the rules
for the passage of a measure may be debated on for one (1) hour, which shall
be divided equally between those in favor and those against.
The House shall proceed to consider the measure after voting to suspend
the rules. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Members present, there being a quorum,
shall be necessary for the passage of said measure.
Likewise, Rule XXVII, Section 164 provides:
Section 164. Amendments to the Rules. Any provision of these Rules,
except those that are also embodied in the Constitution, may be amended by a
majority vote of all the Members of the House.
In ignoring the third category of independent membership and in allowing the
independent members to intrude into the prerogative of the Minority to select its
Minority Leader, Representative Farias clearly wanted to suspend or amend Rule II,
Section 8 of the Rules.
Unfortunately, there was neither a Committee on Rules 1 5 0 that moved to
suspend the Rules, as required by Section 111, nor a voting of two-thirds (2/3) of the
Members present, as required by Section 112 of Rule XIV. There was also no vote taken
by all members of the House to amend the Rules, as required by Rule XXVII, Section
164. Thus, Representative Farias' mere insistence on a different set of governing rules
is invalid.
Third, there is no "estoppel by silence" that could amount to an amendment of the
Rules.
Certainly, petitioners have not been silent. On July 26, 2016, a day immediately
following Representative Farias' own interpretation of Rule II, Section 8, Representative
Lagman raised a question of personal and collective privilege assailing such
interpretation. 1 5 1 Representative Erice also made a manifestation and a parliamentary
inquiry opposing it. 1 5 2
On July 27, 2016, after Representative Suarez clinched the position of Minority
Leader with the help of the abstaining members' votes, Representative Marcoleta
questioned how these abstaining members could have validly elected Representative
Suarez as Minority Leader under the Rules. 1 5 3
On August 1, 2016, Representative Lagman also wrote to Speaker Alvarez,
pointing out that Representative Farias erroneously interpreted Rule II, Section 8. 1 5 4
On August 15, 2016, Representative Lagman differed from Representative
Farias' view on how one becomes part of the Majority or the Minority. 1 5 5
Then nally, before this Court, petitioners point to the irregular procedure by
which Representative Suarez obtained the position as Minority Leader. Thus, in
repeatedly making such inquiries, petitioners cannot be estopped by their alleged
silence, 1 5 6 especially since there was no such silence.
Fourth, the Rules of the House of Representatives do not cover the doctrine of
estoppel.
Estoppel bars a person who admitted or represented something from later on
denying or disproving that thing in any litigation arising from such admission or
representation. 1 5 7 The sessions before the House are not litigations; the election of its
Minority Leader does not approximate a proceeding in court.
Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution allows the House to determine its
own rules during its deliberations. In view of this, the Body adopted the Rules of the
16th Congress as the Provisional Rules of the House of Representatives. 1 5 8 The
proceedings in the House are guided by the Rules to which the House "has pledge[d]
faithful obedience." 1 5 9
In contrast, estoppel is a civil law concept found under Article 1431 1 6 0 of the
Civil Code and Rule 131, Section 2 (a) 1 6 1 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Neither of
these provisions on estoppel forms part of the House Rules, whether directly or by
reference.
Rule XXV, Section 161 explicitly states that only parliamentary practices of the
Philippine Assembly, Congress, and the Batasang Pambansa apply suppletorily to the
Rules.
Fifth, even assuming that "estoppel by silence" is recognized in House
proceedings, this doctrine does not apply to the situation at bar. In Santiago Syjuco, Inc.
v. Castro: 1 6 2
[A]n estoppel may arise from silence as well as from words. "Estoppel by
silence" arises where a person, who by force of circumstances is under a duty to
another to speak, refrains from doing so and thereby leads the other to believe
in the existence of a state of facts in reliance on which [a person] acts to his [or
her] prejudice. 1 6 3 (Emphasis supplied)ITAaHc
Estoppel by silence may only be invoked if the person's failure to speak out
caused prejudice or injury to the other. 1 6 4 For instance, a property owner who
knowingly allows another to sell the property without objecting to the transaction is
estopped from setting up his title as against a third person who was misled by and
suffered an injury from that transaction. 1 6 5
Representative Farias failed to show how his reliance on petitioners' alleged
silence to his wrong interpretation of the Rules on July 25, 2016 prejudiced him.
Petitioners' silence did not injure his rights; rather, it was his insistence on this mistaken
interpretation that has injured petitioners' rights.
Neither was Speaker Alvarez nor Representative Suarez prejudiced by petitioners'
lack of objection to Representative Farias' opinion on July 25, 2016. On that day,
Speaker Alvarez's election for House Speaker was already guaranteed while
Representative Suarez had yet to become Minority Leader. The election for a Minority
Leader would arrive only two (2) days later, on June 27, 2016.
V
Majority Leader Representative Farias accepted the transfer of the 10
abstaining members to the Majority 1 6 6 and that of Representative Suarez to the
Minority. 1 6 7 Curiously, in both instances of transfer of membership, the Majority
Leader had a say in the matter.
Unfortunately, under Rule II, Section 8, while the Majority Leader has discretion to
accept a representative applying to be a member of the Majority, he or she does not
have the same discretion when a representative applies to be part of the Minority.
The fourth to eighth paragraphs, which constitute the second major component
of Rule II, Section 8, state:
the concerned Member.
In case the Majority or the Minority declines such request to transfer, the
concerned Member shall be considered an independent Member of the House.
The text of the provision reveals that before a member may transfer a liation, he
or she must rst submit "a written request to transfer to the Majority or Minority,
through the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be."
Transferring from one (1) coalition to the other, thus, involves a two (2)-step
process: a written request to transfer and a written acceptance. The phrase, "as the
case may be," implies that there are alternative scenarios here a member may be
transferring from the Majority to the Minority, from the Minority to the Majority, or from
independent membership to the Minority or Majority. Whatever course of action he or
she takes will flow through to the sentences that follow.
Under the fourth to eighth paragraphs of Rule II, Section 8, a Member may
transfer from the Majority to the Minority, provided that:
a. The concerned [Majority] Member submits a written request to transfer to
the . . . Minority, through the . . . Minority Leader[.] The Secretary General
shall be furnished a copy of the request to transfer;
b. The . . . Minority . . . accepts the concerned Member in writing; and
c. The Speaker shall be furnished by the . . . Minority [Leader] . . . a copy of
the acceptance in writing of the concerned Member.
Stated otherwise, the Majority member seeking to transfer to the Minority must
write to the Minority Leader and ask to be accepted in the Minority. The Minority must
accept the applicant-representative in writing, with the Minority Leader copy-furnishing
to the House Speaker his or her letter of acceptance. The same is true for independent
members seeking to transfer to the Minority.
Under the rst, second, and last paragraphs of Rule II, Section 8, the 20
abstaining Members are independent members. The fourth to eighth paragraphs
further reveal that these abstaining members are considered independent until they are
accepted in the Minority by the ipso facto Minority Leader Representative Baguilat.
Moreover, Representative Suarez, who voted for Speaker Alvarez, is himself considered
part of the Majority. His request to transfer to the Minority needed the permission of
Minority Leader Representative Baguilat and not that of Majority Leader Representative
Farias.
The Majority Leader's contrary observation is incongruous to the purpose of a
Minority. It is absurd to require the permission of the Majority Leader before a member
may be accepted in the Minority.
One cannot imagine the kind of Minority that is created when the Majority Leader,
instead of the Minority Leader, is the deciding person on who would constitute the
Minority. Such undermines the opposition. It yields the absurd result of having the
opposition subject to the discretion of the dominant group.
Words ought to be more subservient to the intent and not the intent to the words.
1 6 8 In Ty Sue v. Hord, 1 6 9 this Court En Banc upheld its duty to select the interpretation
"which best accords with the letter of the law and with [the law's] purpose."
In the Dissenting Opinion of J. Abad Santos in Philippine Consumers Foundation,
Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 1 7 0 he stated:
The literal interpretation of the words of an act should not prevail if it
creates a result contrary to the apparent intention of the legislature and if the
words are su ciently exible to admit of a construction which will effectuate
the legislative intention. The intention prevails over the letter, and the letter must
if possible be read so as to conform to the spirit of the act. While the intention
of the legislature must be ascertained from the words used to express it, the
manifest reason and obvious purpose of the law should not be sacri ced to a
literal interpretation of such words. Thus words or clauses may be enlarged or
restricted to harmonize with other provisions of an act. The particular inquiry is
not what is the abstract force of the words or what they may comprehend, but in
what sense were they intended to be understood or what understanding do they
convey as used in the particular act. 1 7 1 (Emphasis supplied) CHTAIc
The importance of the Minority Leader and an authentic Minority cannot be

understated. The Minority Leader is the spokesperson of the Minority members of the
House. 1 7 2 He or she is also an ex o cio member of all 58 1 7 3 standing Committees
1 7 4 of the House, including Appropriations, Constitutional Amendments, Foreign Affairs,
Good Government and Public Accountability, Government Reorganization, Human
Rights, Justice, Local Government, Public Information, Revision of Laws, and Rules.
All House committees are represented not only by the Majority Leader and
Deputy Majority Leaders but also by the Minority Leader and Deputy Minority Leaders.
Both the administration and the opposition must have a voice and vote in all
committees. 1 7 5 The House committees study, deliberate on, and act upon all
measures presented to them such as bills, resolutions, and petitions. 1 7 6 They also
recommend the approval and adoption of these measures if they will advance public
interest and welfare. 1 7 7
The Members of each committee comprising the Majority and the Minority are
chosen by the Majority and the Minority, respectively, 1 7 8 based on proportional
representation. 1 7 9 Only the Committee on Rules is not organized according to the
proportional representation; 1 8 0 nevertheless, the Minority Leader and the Deputy
Minority Leaders automatically become members of the Committee on Rules. 1 8 1
The Committee on Rules is considered the most powerful of all committees, as it
dictates all matters relating to the Rules of the House, the Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment
Proceedings, referral of bills, and the creation of committees and their respective
jurisdictions. 1 8 2 The Committee on Rules also recommends the organization of special
committees and defines their membership and jurisdiction. 1 8 3
The legislative branch is the branch solely entrusted with the creation and
amendment of laws. Petitioners describe Representative Suarez as the "Minority"
Leader of the Majority, 1 8 4 handpicked and chosen by the administration itself: 1 8 5
Consistent with the alliance of Respondent Rep. Suarez and the supermajority
coalition in the House, as early as 01 July 2016 Respondent Rep. Suarez
principally authored, together with Respondent Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and
Respondent Majority Leader Farias, key administration measures. Respondent
Rep. Suarez is a principal author of H.B. No. 1 reinstituting capital punishment[,]
H.B. No. 3 granting emergency powers to the President to address the tra c
mess[,] and later House Resolution No. 105 calling for the investigation linking
Sen. Leila de Lima to the proliferation of drug syndicates in the New Bilibid
Prison[.] In fact[,] out of the 15 bills led by Respondent Speaker Alvarez,
Respondent Rep. Suarez is a principal author of 11 of them or three-fourths of
all the bills filed by the Speaker. 1 8 6
xxx xxx xxx
Respondents Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Farias found in Respondent
Rep. Suarez the perfect Majority's "Minority Leader." He has faithfully complied
with his commitment to be a cooperative, if not servile, "opposition" leader. His
allegiance to the Respondent House o cials and President Duterte nds no
parallel.
Petitioner Representative Lagman, himself a veteran lawmaker, asserts that the
House of Representatives should have a constructive scalizer or a genuine
opposition within the administration 1 8 7 in order "that the policies of government will
be the result of an extensive debate, not an orchestrated soliloquy." 1 8 8
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that "[t]he Philippines is a
democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them." The people, in their sovereign capacity, delegate their
government authority to their duly-elected representatives who will speak for them
during deliberations and sessions of Congress, among others.
In a representative democracy, there is plurality in governance and no single party
has the sole power above all. Opposition is integral in a democracy. Our system goes
out of its way to give every person an equal footing, to institutionalize the people, and to
allow their voices to be heard. For instance, the people's "freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances" 1 8 9 are protected and guaranteed by
the Constitution.
The underrepresented and marginalized are given a voice in lawmaking through
party-list representation. 1 9 0 Independent people's organizations are also given a role in
"enabl[ing] the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their
legitimate and collective interests and aspirations[.]" 1 9 1 In The Diocese of Bacolod v.
Commission on Elections: 1 9 2
[T]he cornerstone of every democracy is that sovereignty resides in the
people. To ensure order in running the state's affairs, sovereign powers were
delegated and individuals would be elected or nominated in key government
positions to represent the people. 1 9 3
The legislative branch of the government, in its most ideal form, is one that
accommodates all voices. Drowning the voice of dissent restricts the right of the
people to effective and reasonable participation in public affairs. Having a genuine
Minority maintains the integrity of democracy.
A genuine Minority will express differences of opinion without fear. It does not
easily hop on the bandwagon. Rather, it scrutinizes and debates on pending legislations
from lenses typically opposed to those belonging in the mainstream. Such opinions of
dissent may avert the possible prejudicial effects that a future legislation may have on
the people or on the Philippines at large.
In determining the process of choosing the Minority Leader, the reason for the
Rules and the parliamentary tradition observed by the House must be taken into
context and adopted.
To borrow the words of Justice Perfecto in Avelino, 1 9 4 respondents
unfortunately decided to dilute the votes of the actual Minority "as soon as possible to
wrest from [the Minority] the leadership which, upon democratic principles, rightly
belongs to" 1 9 5 someone else.
VI
Petitioners claim to be the genuine and legitimate members of the House
Minority as they voted for Representative Baguilat instead of electing House Speaker
Alvarez or abstaining. 1 9 6 Petitioner Representative Baguilat, the second placer for
House Speaker, seeks to be recognized as Minority Leader based on parliamentary
practice and as duly chosen by the genuine Minority under Rule II, Section 8 of the
Rules. EATCcI
Petitioners have consistently protested against Representative Farias'

erroneous interpretation one that was not even submitted for voting which made
possible Representative Baguilat's exclusion from his entitlement as Minority Leader.
Petitioners have also repeatedly objected to Representative Suarez's irregular transfer
to the Minority, secured by the permission of the Majority Leader, instead of the
Minority Leader.
Petitioners' numerous objections on different session dates and as contained in
letters went unheeded. Left with no other recourse, they come before this Court
assailing respondents' grave abuse of discretion.
In their view, Mandamus is the remedy for the violation of their rights. In Militante
v. Court of Appeals: 1 9 7
Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person to do the act required to be done when it or [the person] unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law speci cally enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the
use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being
no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 1 9 8
(Emphasis supplied)
Mandamus is available when a person is excluded from the use and enjoyment of
a right or o ce to which he or she is entitled. 1 9 9 As a rule, mandamus requires the
exhaustion of administrative remedies available to the petitioner. 2 0 0 However, prior
resort to exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where the questions
raised are purely legal. 2 0 1
Mandamus lies to compel the board, o cer, or person to do a ministerial act or
duty which the board, o cer, or person unlawfully neglects to do. 2 0 2 In Codilla Sr. v. De
Venecia: 2 0 3
A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an o cer or tribunal performs in a
given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his [or her] own judgment
upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty
upon a public o cer and gives him [or her] the right to decide how or when the
duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty
is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise
of official discretion or judgment. 2 0 4
An act is considered ministerial where the public o cer must do it, out of a legal
obligation, without having any right to decide on the manner, time, or propriety of doing
it. 2 0 5 On the other hand, an act is considered discretionary where the public o cer has
the right to exercise his or her judgment or official discretion in doing the act. 2 0 6
I n Codilla Sr. , 2 0 7 the issue on the rightful representative of the 4th District of
Leyte was already settled by the Commission on Elections En Banc. As the Commission
on Elections En Banc Decision was not appealed before this Court, it became nal and
executory. Thus, the House of Representatives had to o cially recognize petitioner as
the duly-elected representative of the 4th District of Leyte, without having any
discretion on how and when to do it. 2 0 8
I n Velasco v. Hon. Speaker Belmonte , 2 0 9 petitioner argued that the House
Speaker and Secretary General unlawfully excluded him from enjoying his clear right as
the duly-elected Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque. 2 1 0 The
Commission on Elections En Banc had already a rmed petitioner's election, but the
House refused to administer his oath and register him in the Roll of the House of
Representatives. 2 1 1 This Court ruled that the House Speaker and the Secretary General
unlawfully neglected their ministerial duties to recognize petitioner's election. 2 1 2
In both cases, this Court granted the petition for mandamus and compelled the
House Speaker to administer petitioner's oath, as well as the House Secretary General
to register petitioner's name in the Roll of the House of Representatives.
To emphasize, for about 30 years since the 1987 Constitution was promulgated
and the bicameral Congress was restored, the House has collectively considered the
votes for the second placer for House Speaker as the votes of the Minority for its
Minority Leader.
Thus, it is up to the House leadership to extend recognition to the duly-
designated Minority Leader. Mandamus, however, does not lie to allow this Court to
choose the Minority Leader.
VII
Caution must be exercised in having a complete hands-off approach on matters
involving grave abuse of discretion of a co-equal branch. This Court has come a long
way from our pronouncements in Mabanag v. Vito. 2 1 3
In Mabanag , the Congress voted on the "Resolution of Both Houses Proposing an
Amendment to the [1935] Constitution of the Philippines to be Appended as an
Ordinance Thereto." 2 1 4 The Resolution proposed to amend the 1935 Constitution to
give way for the American parity rights provision, which granted United States citizens
equal rights with Filipinos 2 1 5 in the exploitation of our country's natural resources and
the operation of public utilities, contrary to Articles XIII 2 1 6 and XIV 2 1 7 of the 1935
Philippine Constitution. 2 1 8
Article XV, Section 1 2 1 9 of the 1935 Constitution required the a rmative votes
of three-fourths (3/4) of all members of the Senate and the House, voting separately,
before a proposed constitutional amendment could be submitted to the people for
approval or disapproval. The Senate was then composed of 24 members while the
House had 98 members. 2 2 0 Two (2) House representatives later resigned, leaving the
House membership with only 96 representatives. 2 2 1 Following the Constitutional
mandate, the required votes to pass the Resolution were 18 Senators and 72
Representatives. 2 2 2
The Senate suspended three (3) Senators from the Nacionalista Party, namely,
Ramon Diokno, Jose O. Vera, and Jose E. Romero, for alleged irregularity in their
elections. 2 2 3 Meanwhile, the House also excluded eight (8) representatives from taking
their seats. Although these eight (8) representatives were not formally suspended, the
House nevertheless excluded them from participating for the same reason. 2 2 4 Due to
the suspension of the Senators and Representatives, only 16 out of the required 18
Senators and 68 out of the 72 Representatives voted in favor of the Resolution. 2 2 5 DHITCc
Mabanag recognized that had the excluded members of Congress been allowed
to vote, then the parity amendment that gave the Americans rights to our natural
resources, which this Court ruled impacted on our sovereignty, would not have been
enacted. 2 2 6
Nevertheless, the absence of the necessary votes of three-fourths (3/4) of either
branch of Congress, voting separately, did not prevent Congress from passing the
Resolution. Petitioners thus assailed the Resolution for being unconstitutional. This
Court, ruling under the 1935 Constitution, upheld the enactment despite the patent
violation of Article XV, Section 1. 2 2 7
Mabanag ruled that Congress in joint session already certi ed that both Houses
adopted the Resolution, which was already an enrolled bill. 2 2 8 Thus, this Court had no
more power to review as it was a political question:
In view of the foregoing considerations, we deem it unnecessary to
decide the question of whether the senators and representatives who were
ignored in the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote were members of
Congress within the meaning of Section 1 of Article XV of the Philippine
Constitution. 2 2 9
Justice Perfecto's dissent, however, considered the matter a constitutional
question that is to say, deciding whether respondents violated the requirements of
Article XV of the 1935 Constitution was within this Court's jurisdiction. 2 3 0
Subsequent rulings 2 3 1 have since delimited and clari ed the political question
doctrine, especially under the 1987 Constitution. It bears stressing that Article VIII,
Section 1 explicitly grants this Court the power "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."
We cannot again shy away from this constitutional mandate.
The rule of law must still prevail in curbing any attempt to suppress the minority
and eliminate dissent.
In Estrada v. Desierto: 2 3 2
To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political
question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this [C]ourt
not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable but also 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 government. Heretofore, the
judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed
against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision, however, courts
are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not
just grant the Court power of doing nothing. 2 3 3 (Emphasis supplied)
Any attempt by the dominant to silence dissent and take over an entire institution
nds no room under the 1987 Constitution. Parliamentary practice and the Rules of the
House of Representatives cannot be overruled in favor of personal agenda.
It is understandable for the majority in any deliberative body to push their
advantages to the consternation of the minority. However, in a representative
democracy marked with opportunities for deliberation, the complete annihilation of any
dissenting voice, no matter how reasonable, is a prelude to many forms of
authoritarianism. While politics speaks in numbers, many among our citizens can only
hope that those political numbers are the result of mature discernment. Maturity in
politics is marked by a courageous attitude to be open to the genuine opposition, who
will aggressively point out the weaknesses of the administration, in an orderly fashion,
within parliamentary forums. After all, if the true interest of the public is in mind, even
the administration will benefit by criticism.
VIII
The remedy petitioners have chosen is a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. To
succeed, however, they should not only be able show that respondents' acts
acknowledging Representative Suarez as the Minority Leader are null and void; they
must also show that at the time this Court acts, petitioner Representative Baguilat still
has the clear and unmistakable right to be recognized as the Minority Leader.
In my view, writs of mandamus against Congress should only be granted when
this Court is satis ed, with an abundance of caution, that petitioner still has a clear legal
right. The House of Representatives is a political forum where alliances change as soon
as the Majority reveals its position on pressing issues, which may have ripened after the
House's opening session and which its members may not have anticipated then.
Certainly, at the beginning of the 17th Congress, the right of Representative
Baguilat was clear. However, since then, several signi cant votes, such as those on the
death penalty bill and the extension of Martial Law, have been taken. The proper
recourse in a case like this should just have been an action for certiorari or prohibition
to annul the actions of the respondents. The House would then proceed to allow its
Minority to convene and select its leader in accordance with the Rules. cEaSHC
The best kinds of dissents are those that are voiced from a platform of principle.
By its very nature, dissents are carried by minorities. If history is to be properly
understood, the persistent but often drowned out voices of the minority may be heard
better in the future.
For the minority, the present may be unforgiving: for they will be shunned and
often times shamed by powerful forces. Yet, dissents by minorities are always
expressions of hope. In the near future, with the bene t of hindsight, their views will
attain clarity to most, sooner rather than later. The creativity and wisdom of those who
took a stand will then be truly appreciated.
It will be then that they will take their turn to be the majority.
With deep regret, in the absence of a showing of a clear and unmistakable
present right on the part of petitioners, considering the possibility of shifting political
alliances, I cannot vote to issue the writ of mandamus, even as I nd that there was
grave abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, I vote to DISMISS the petition but only because it was the wrong
remedy.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 3-51.
2. Id. at 12. See also id. at 57-63.

3. Id. at 13-14.
4. Id. at 14.
5. See id. at 14-15.

6. Id. at 17.
7. Id. at 22.
8. See portions Rep. Suarez's Comment dated January 17, 2017; id. at 222-231.
9. See portions of the OSG's Comment dated February 15, 2017; rollo, Vol. II, pp. 738-739 and
747-755.
10. Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City ,
455 Phil. 956, 962 (2003), citing Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
11. 701 Phil. 365 (2013).
12. See id. at 386.

13. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 13-14.
14. I JOURNAL, HOUSE 17th Congress 1st Session 16-17 (July 25, 2016).
15. "The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the
Constitution to be recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the Journals have also been accorded conclusive effect."
(Arroyo v. De Venecia, 343 Phil. 42, 74 [1997]).
16. See rollo, Vol. I, pp. 266-269; italics, underscoring, and emphasis supplied.
17. See id. at 113 (dorsal portion). See also I JOURNAL, HOUSE 17th Congress 1st Session 21
(July 25, 2016).
18. See rollo, p. 113 (dorsal portion)-114. See also I JOURNAL, HOUSE 17th Congress 1st
Session 21-22 (July 25, 2016).
19. See rollo, pp. 14-15 and 125-126. See also I JOURNAL, HOUSE 17th Congress 1st Session
78-79 (July 25, 2016).
20. See portions in Rep. Suarez's Comment dated January 17, 2017; id. at 452.
21. Section 8, Rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 16th Congress (December
10, 2014) reads:
Section 8. The Majority and the Minority. Members who vote for the winning candidate
for Speaker shall constitute the Majority in the House and they shall elect from among
themselves the Majority Leader. The Majority Leader may be changed, at any time, by a
majority vote of all the Majority Members.
The Minority Leader shall be elected by the Members of the Minority and can be changed,
at any time, by a majority vote of all the Minority Members.
The Majority and Minority shall elect such number of Deputy Majority and Minority
Leaders as the rules provide.
A Member may transfer from the Majority to the Minority, or vice versa, at any time:
Provided, That:
a. The concerned Member submits a written request to transfer to the Majority or
Minority, through the Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be. The Secretary
General shall be furnished a copy of the request to transfer;
b. The Majority or Minority, as the case may be, accepts the concerned Member in writing;
and
c. The Speaker shall be furnished by the Majority or the Minority Leaders, as the case
may be, a copy of the acceptance in writing of the concerned Member.
In case the Majority or the Minority declines such request to transfer, the concerned
Member shall be considered an independent Member of the House.
In any case, whether or not the request to transfer is accepted, all committee assignments
and memberships given the concerned Member by the Majority or Minority, as the case
may be, shall be automatically forfeited.
Members who choose not to align themselves with the Majority or the Minority shall be
considered as independent Members of the House. They may, however, choose to join
the Majority or Minority upon written request to and approval thereof by the Majority or
Minority, as the case may be.
22. See rollo, Vol. I, pp. 34-42.

23. See Bernas, Joaquin. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A
COMMENTARY. 2003 Edition, pp. 711-712.
24. Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, 359 Phil. 276 (1998).
25. Id. at 299.
26. Section 16 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:

SECTION 16. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for
disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend
or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
27. Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, supra note 24, at 300.
28. See id. at 301.

29. See id. at 294, citing Taada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 575 (1997).
30. Taada v. Angara, id. at 574-575.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 575.

33. See Santiago v. Guingona, supra note 24, at 301.
34. Id. at 295, citing Arroyo v. De Venecia, 343 Phil. 42, 74 (1997).
LEONEN, J., concurring and dissenting:

1. Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17 (1949) [En Banc].
2. Rollo, pp. 222-223, Comment.
3. Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17, 22 (1949) [En Banc].

4. Id. at 18.
5. See ARUEGO, JOSE, THE FRAMING OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION,
<https://archive.org/details/the-framing-of-the-philippine-constitution> (1936).
6. Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17 (1949) [En Banc].
7. Id. at 36.
8. Id.
9. 100 Phil. 1101 (1957) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc].
10. 113 Phil. 1 (1961) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc].

11. G.R. No. L-19721, May 10, 1962 [En Banc].
12. Rollo, p. 749, OSG Comment.
13. Id. at 226-229, Suarez Comment.

14. 359 Phil. 276 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
15. Rollo, p. 231, Suarez Comment.
16. Id. at 226.

17. 359 Phil. 276 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
18. Id. at 296.
19. Id. at 286.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 287.
22. Id.

23. Id. at 305.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 297.
26. Id. at 300.
27. Id.
28. Id.
2 9 . Legislative Information, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 17th CONGRESS,
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/about/?about=history> (last visited July 24, 2017), citing
R. Velasco and M. Sylvano, The Philippine Legislative Reader 41 (1989).
30. Rollo, pp. 31-32.
31. Id. at 33, citing Rulings of the Chair, 3rd ed., 2010, p. XXXVIII.
32. Id. The o cial website of the House of Representatives does not contain a copy of the
Journal of the 11th Congress; only those from the 12th to the present Congresses. See
House Journals, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS),
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/?v=journals> (Last accessed July 25, 2017).
33. Id. at 177, TSN dated August 24, 2016.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Id. at 24.

39. Id. at 24.
40. Id.
41. Id.
42. Id. at 178.
43. Id.
44. Id. at 251, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

45. Id. at 215. Atty. Marilyn B. Barua-Yap, Secretary General under the 16th Congress.
46. Id. at 215-216, Suarez Comment.
48. Id. at 719, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016. The rst sentence of Rule XII, sec. 94,
titled "Conduct and Attire During Sessions and Committee Meetings," shall be read as
follows: MEMBERS SHALL WEAR PROPER ATTIRE WHICH IS BARONG FILIPINO OR
COAT AND TIE, OR BUSINESS ATTIRE FOR MEN, AND FILIPINA DRESS OR BUSINESS
SUIT FOR WOMEN, AND OBSERVE PROPER DECORUM DURING SESSIONS AND
COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
49. RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule XXVIII, sec. 165
provides that "[t]hese rules shall take effect on the date of adoption."
50. Rollo, p. 264, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.
5 1 . Id. at 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016. He was nominated by petitioner
Representative Raul A. Daza, seconded by petitioner Representative Tom S. Villarin.
52. Id.

54. Rollo, p. 816, OSG Comment, Annex 5.
55. Id.

58. Id.
59. Id. at 266-269.

60. Id. at 40-42, Petition.
61. Id. at 269.
62. See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule II, sec. 8
provides:
Section 8. Members who vote for the winning candidate for Speaker shall constitute the
Majority in the House[.]
63. Rollo, p. 140.
64. Id.
65. Id. at 119, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

66. Id. at 117.
67. Id. at 116-117.
68. Id. at 24, Petition.

70. Id. at 117.
71. Id.

74. Except for the House Speaker himself, as he is automatically part of the Majority.
75. Rollo, p. 118.

76. Id. at 773-774, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

78. Id.

82. Id. at 132, Representative Lagman's Letter dated August 1, 2016.
83. Rollo, p. 132, Lagman Letter dated August 1, 2016.

84. Id. at 268-269 and 735. The votes of Representatives Aragones, Co, and Garcia are not
mentioned in the files forwarded to this Court.
85. Rollo, p. 12, Petition; see also rollo, pp. 61-62, Trishia Billiones, Lagman blasts Suarez's
"anointment" as minority leader, ABS-CBN NEWS, July 25, 2016, <http://news.abs-
cbn.com/news/07/25/16/lagman-blasts-suarezs-anointment-as-minority-leader> (last
accessed July 24, 2017).
86. Id.
87. Id. at 16.

88. Id.
89. Id. at 15. They were Representatives Abayon, Aggabao, Alonte-Naguiat, Aragones, Arcillas,
Bagatsing, Batocabe, Bernos, Bertiz, Bravo, Cera ca, Chavez, Co, Cortuna, De Vera,
Eusebio, Ferriol-Pascual, Garbin, Garcia, and Garin.
90. Id.
91. Id.
92. Id. at 680, Journal No. 4 dated August 1, 2016.
93. Id.
94. Id.
95. Id. at 132.
96. Id. at 136, Lagman Letter dated August 1, 2016.
97. Id. at 132.

99. Id.
101. Id. at 133.

102. Id. at 134.
103. Id. at 132.
104. Id.

105. Id.
106. Id.

108. Id. at 17, Petition.
109. Id. at 133.

111. Id. at 160, Annex Y of Petition.
112. Id. at 158, Annex X of Petition.
113. Id. at 148, Annex S of Petition.

114. Id. at 142, Annex P of Petition.
115. Id. at 156, Annex W of Petition.
116. Id. at 152, Annex U of Petition.
117. Id. at 144, Annex Q of Petition.

118. Id. at 146, Annex R of Petition.
119. Id. at 150, Annex T of Petition.
120. Id. at 154, Annex V of Petition.

121. Id. at 18-20.

125. Id.
126. Id. at 716-717, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016.
127. Id. at 140, Farias First Letter dated July 26, 2016.
128. Id. at 717.
129. Id.
130. Id. at 713. The Chair was Deputy Speaker Raneo E. Abu.
131. Id. at 140, Farias First Letter dated July 26, 2016.
132. RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule XIII, sec. 109
provides:
Section 109. Appeal from Ruling of the Chair. Any Member may appeal from the ruling
of the Chair and may be recognized by the Chair, even though another Member has the
oor. No appeal is in order when another appeal is pending. The Member making the
appeal shall state the reasons for the appeal subject to the ve-minute rule. The Chair
shall state the reasons for the ruling and forthwith submit the question to the body. An
appeal cannot be amended and shall yield only to a motion to adjourn, to a point of
order, to a question of personal privilege or to recess.
133. Rollo, pp. 717-718, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016.
134. Id. at 718.
135. Id.
136. Id. at 719.

138. Id. at 221, Suarez Comment.
139. Id.
140. Id. at 3-56.

141. Arroyo v. De Venecia, 343 Phil. 42 (1997) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
142. Id. at 60-61.
143. Id. at 70.

144. Legislative Information, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 17TH CONGRESS,
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisinfo/?v=students> (last visited July 25, 2017).
145. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius: the express mention of one person, thing or
consequence implies the exclusion of all others. See Romualdez v. Marcelo, 529 Phil. 90,
109 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Special First Division].
146. Cassus omissus pro omisso habendus est. See Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte v.
Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte, 570 Phil. 395, 417 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
147. Rollo, p. 777, Annex 1 of OSG Comment.
148. Id. at 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016. On July 25, 2016, then Acting Floor Leader
Representative Farias expressed his view that there were only two (2) categories: those
in favor of Speaker Alvarez were considered as Majority members, while the rest were
considered as Minority members, with no third category of independent membership.
149. Id. at 264-266.
150. See rollo, p. 266. When Representative Farias made his interpretation at the start of the
First Regular Session of the 17th Congress on July 25, 2016, the Committee on Rules
had not been constituted because the election for Speaker was yet to commence. The
Committee on Rules is headed by the Majority Leader as the chairperson, with the
Deputy Majority Leaders as the vice-chairpersons (Rule IX, Section 26 (ss)).
151. Rollo, p. 116, TSN dated July 26, 2016.
152. Id. at 772-773, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

154. Id. at 132, Lagman First Letter dated August 1, 2016.
156. See Philippine Realty Holdings Corporation v. Firematic Philippines, Inc., 550 Phil. 586, 608
(2007) [Per J. Callejo Sr., Third Division].
157. See CIVIL CODE, art. 1431 and RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 2 (a).
159. RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17th Congress), Preamble.
160. CIVIL CODE, art. 1431 provides:

Article 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive
upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person
relying thereon.
161. RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 2 (a) states:
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. The following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing is true, and to act upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted
to falsify it.
162. Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro, 256 Phil. 621 (1989) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
163. Id. at 644.
164. Id.
165. Id. at 645.

166. Rollo, pp. 18-21.
167. Id. at 140, Farias' Letter dated July 26, 2016.
168. Verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservice. See Dissenting Opinion of J. Abad Santos
in Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission ,
216 Phil. 185, 207 (1984) [Per J. Makasiar, En Banc].
169. 12 Phil. 485 (1909) [Per J. Tracey, En Banc].

170. 216 Phil. 185 (1984) [Per J. Makasiar, En Banc].
171. Id. at 207.
172. House Leaders Information: Minority Leader, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH

CONGRESS), <http://www.congress.gov.ph/leaders/?l=minority> (last accessed July 24,
2017).
173. House Committees, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS),
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/committees/?v=standing> (last accessed July 24, 2017).
174. See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule IX, sec. 27
and 33. The House has two kinds of committees, standing and special, whose members
are generally chosen based on the proportional representation of the Majority and the
Minority.
175. RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule IX, sec. 30 states:
Section 30. The Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, the Majority Leader, the Deputy Majority
Leaders, the Minority Leader and the ve (5) Deputy Minority Leaders and the
chairperson of the Committee on Accounts or a Member deputized by any of the
aforementioned officials shall have voice and vote in all committees.
176. Rule IX, Section 26, first sentence.
177. Rule IX, Section 26, first sentence.
178. Rule IX, Section 30.
179. Under Section 27 of Rule IX of the Rules of the House:

Section 27. Kinds. The House shall have standing and special committees that shall be
organized, except for the Committee on Rules, on the basis of proportional
representation of the Majority and the Minority. Standing committees shall have
jurisdiction over measures relating to needs, concerns, issues and interests affecting the
general welfare and which require continuing or comprehensive legislative study,
attention and action. Special committees are intended to address measures relating to
special or urgent needs, concerns, issues and interests of certain sectors or
constituencies requiring immediate legislative action, or to such needs, concerns, issues
and interests that may fall within the scope of the jurisdiction of a standing committee,
but which the standing committee concerned is unable to act upon with needed
dispatch.

181. Rule IX, Section 26 (ss).
182. Rule IX, Section 26 (ss).

184. Rollo, p. 47, Petition.
187. The word " scalizer" comes from the Spanish verb " scalizar," which means "to criticize."
Filipino lawmakers turned this into an English word to describe a person who is a critic
of an alleged government wrongdoing. For example, in an article dated April 12, 2007 by
the Philippine Information Agency, Senator Joker Arroyo used the term to refer to an
"opposition within the administration:"
Tacloban City (12 April) Re-electionist Senator Joker Arroyo defended his position in
running under the Administration ticket during the Team Unity's campaign sortie here in
Samar yesterday saying he will continue to act as " scalizer" of the Arroyo
administration.
According to Senator Arroyo, his position of being an "opposition within the
administration" will not change despite the fact that he is running under the
Administration's Team Unity as there was no agreement at all that he will stop being
critical to the Arroyo government in exchange for his being picked up as its candidate.
(Joker stresses role as Administration's " scalizer," http://archives.pia.gov.ph/?
m=12&sec=reader&rp=7&fi=p070412.htm&no=59&date=04/12/2007)
188. Trishia Billiones, Lagman blasts Suarez's "anointment" as minority leader , ABS-CBN
NEWS, July 25, 2016, <http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/25/16/lagman-blasts-
suarezs-anointment-as-minority-leader> (last accessed July 24, 2017).
189. CONST., art. III, sec. 4.
190. CONST., art. VI, sec. 5 (1).
191. CONST., art. XIII, sec. 15.

192. The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections , 751 Phil. 301 (2015) [Per J. Leonen,
En Banc].
193. Id. at 360.
194. Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17 (1989) [Per J. Carson, En Banc].

195. Dissenting Opinion of J. Perfecto in Avelino v. Cuenco , 83 Phil. 17, 48 (1989) [Per J.
Carson, En Banc].
196. Rollo, p. 49.
197. Militante v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 522 (2000) [Per J. Puno En Banc].
198. Id. at 537.

199. Id. See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 3:
Section 3. When any tribunal, corporation, board, o cer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law speci cally enjoins as a duty resulting from an
o ce, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
right or o ce to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may le a
veri ed petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time
to be speci ed by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner . . .
200. Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City ,
455 Phil. 956 (2003) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
201. Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad, 283 Phil. 400, 407 (1992) [Per J. Cruz, First
Division].
202. Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr. , G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 2016,
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
le=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/211140.pdf> [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, En
Banc].
203. Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia, 442 Phil. 139 (2002) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
204. Id. at 189.
205. Id.
206. Id.
207. 442 Phil. 139 (2002) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
208. Id. at 190.
209. Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr. , G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
le=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/211140.pdf> [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, En
Banc].
210. Id. at 8-9.
211. Id.
212. Id. at 21.
213. Mabanag v. Vito, 78 Phil. 1 (1947) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc].
214. Id. at 2.
215. The Parity Amendment read as follows:

Notwithstanding the provision of section one, Article Thirteen [Sec. 1, art. XIII], and section
eight, Article Fourteen [Sec. 8, art. XIV], of the foregoing Constitution, during the
effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into by the President of the Philippines
with the President of the United States on the fourth of July, nineteen hundred and forty-
six, [July 4, 1946], pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act Numbered Seven
hundred and thirty-three, but in no case to extend beyond the third of July, nineteen
hundred and seventy-four, [July 3, 1974], the disposition, exploitation, development, and
utilization of all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces and sources of potential
energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of public
utilities, shall, if OPEN to any person, be open to citizens of the United States and to all
forms of business enterprise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the
United States in the same manner as to and under the same conditions imposed upon,
citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations owned or controlled by
citizens of the Philippines.
216. CONST. (1935), art. XIII, sec. 1. All Agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the
Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of
which is owned by such citizens subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession
at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution.
Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated,
and no license, concession, or lease for the resources shall be granted for a period
exceeding twenty- ve years, renewable for another twenty- ve years, except as to water
right for irrigation, water supply, sheries, or industrial uses other than the development
of water power, in which cases bene cial use may be the measure and the limit of the
grant.
Section 2. No private corporation or association may acquire, lease, or hold public
agricultural lands in excess of one thousand and twenty-four hectares, nor may any
individual acquire such lands by purchase in excess of one hundred and forty-four
hectares, or by lease in excess of one thousand and twenty-four hectares, or by
homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares. Lands adapted to grazing not exceeding
two thousand hectares, may be leased to an individual, private corporation, or
association.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be
transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations quali ed to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.
217. Article XIV, Section 8. No franchise, certi cate, or any other form of authorization for the
operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or other entities organized under the laws of the Philippines, sixty per
centum of the capital of which is owned by citizens of the Philippines, nor shall such
franchise, certi cate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period
than fty years. No franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, rm, or
corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration,
or repeal by the Congress when the public interest so requires.
218. See Republic v. Quasha, 150-B Phil. 140-166 (1972) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
219. CONST. (1935), art. XV, sec. 1 provides:
Section 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may
propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of
the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for
their ratification.
220. See Dissenting Opinion of J. Perfecto in Mabanag v. Vito , 78 Phil. 1, 29 (1947) [Per J.
Tuason, En Banc].
221. Id. at 38.

222. Id.
223. See Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192 (1946) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc].
224. Mabanag v. Vito, 78 Phil. 1, 2-3 (1947) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc].
See PROF. H.W. BRANDS, BOUND TO EMPIRE: THE UNITED STATES AND THE
PHILIPPINES 231 (1992). Dr. H.W. Brands, Professor of History at the University of Texas
at Austin, describes the exclusion of the "announced opponents of parity" as a "strong-
arm tactic" engineered "to narrow the odds" of the administration not getting the 3/4
assent required to amend the Constitution that would favor American nationals.
225. Id. at 39-40.
226. Id. at 3.
227. Id. at 19.
228. Id. at 3.
229. Id. at 19.
230. Id. at 39-40.
231. See Senate of the Phils. v. Ermita , 527 Phil. 500 (2006) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc],
Bayan v. Ermita , 522 Phil. 201 (2006) [Per J. Azcuna, En Banc], David v. Macapagal-
Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
232. Estrada v. Desierto, 406 Phil. 1 (2001) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
233. Id. at 42-43.

Baguilat Jr. v. Alvarez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baguilat Jr. v. Alvarez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baguilat Jr. v. Alvarez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 227757. July 25, 2017.]

REPRESENTATIVE TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.,

Before the Court is a petition for mandamus 1 led by petitioners

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED .

I concur in the result.

Respondents Representative Pantaleon D. Alvarez (Representative Alvarez),

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

Representative Lagman further asserted that Representative Farias'

Representative Rodante D. Marcoleta (Representative Marcoleta) stood on a

Representative Farias replied that Representative Suarez already transferred to

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

Rule II, Section 8 of the Rules states in full:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE, AS AMENDED

The importance of the Minority Leader and an authentic Minority cannot be

Petitioners have consistently protested against Representative Farias'

2. Id. at 12. See also id. at 57-63.

5. See id. at 14-15.

12. See id. at 386.

22. See rollo, Vol. I, pp. 34-42.

26. Section 16 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:

28. See id. at 301.

32. Id. at 575.

LEONEN, J., concurring and dissenting:

3. Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17, 22 (1949) [En Banc].

10. 113 Phil. 1 (1961) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc].

13. Id. at 226-229, Suarez Comment.

16. Id. at 226.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

38. Id. at 24.

44. Id. at 251, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

53. Id. at 251, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

56. Rollo, p. 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

59. Id. at 266-269.

65. Id. at 119, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

69. Id. at 809, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

72. Id. at 119, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

75. Rollo, p. 118.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

80. Id. at 781, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

83. Rollo, p. 132, Lagman Letter dated August 1, 2016.

87. Id. at 16.

97. Id. at 132.

101. Id. at 133.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

107. Id. at 682, Journal No. 4 dated August 1, 2016.

110. Id. at 18-20, Petition.

113. Id. at 148, Annex S of Petition.

117. Id. at 144, Annex Q of Petition.

120. Id. at 154, Annex V of Petition.

123. Id. at 21-22, Petition.

137. Id. at 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

140. Id. at 3-56.

143. Id. at 70.

152. Id. at 772-773, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

160. CIVIL CODE, art. 1431 provides:

165. Id. at 645.