Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 15

VOL.

393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 227


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

*
G.R. No. 141489. November 29, 2002.

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.,


REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE, LEONARDO
Q. MONTEMAYOR, CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA
ANN P. ROSALES and PATRICIA M. SARENAS,
petitioners, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JUSTICES JOSE A.R. MELO,
VICENTE V. MENDOZA and JOSE C. VITUG, and
REPRESENTATIVES ASANI S. TAMMANG, RAUL M.
GONZALES, 1
DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, DANTON Q.
BUESER, NAPOLEON R. BERATIO, SIMEON E.
GARCIA and SPEAKER MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR.,
respondents.
*
G.R. No. 141490. November 29, 2002.

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.


REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE, LEONARDO
Q. MONTEMAYOR, CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA
ANN P. ROSALES and PATRICIA M. SARENAS,
petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, its
Chair, SENATE PRESIDENT BLAS F. OPLE, and
Members, namely: SENATORS FRANKLIN M. DRILON,
RENATO L. CAYETANO, LOREN LEGARDA-LEVISTE,
ROBERT Z. BARBERS, ANNA DOMINIQUE M.L.
COSETENG, GREGORIO HONASAN, RAMON B.
MAGSAYSAY, JR., TERESA AQUINO-ORETA, RAUL S.
ROCO, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, VICENTE C. SOTTO III
and REPRESENTATIVES LUIS A. ASISTIO, EMILIO R.
ESPINOSA, JR., WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, MANUEL M.
GARCIA, SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, ANTONIO M.
DIAZ, FAUSTINO S. DY, JR., PACIFICO M. FAJARDO,
ERNESTO F. HERRERA, NUR G. JAAFAR, CARLOS M.
PADILLA, ROGELIO M. SARMIENTO and SPEAKER
MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR., respondents.

Separation of Powers; Electoral Tribunals; Commission on


Appointments; The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives
_______________

* EN BANC.

1 Erroneously cited in petitioners’ Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus and


Preliminary Injunction, Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 3, as “DIDAGEN Q.
BUESER.”

228

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

the prerogative, within constitutionally defined limits, to choose


from among its district and party-list representatives those who
may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the HRET and the
CA.—The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally defined
limits, to choose from among its district and partylist
representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the
House in the HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the
Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on the House the
authority to elect among their members those who would fill the
12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for House members in the
Commission on Appointments. Under Section 17, Article VI of the
Constitution, each chamber of Congress exercises the power to
choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who among their
members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of each chamber’s
respective electoral tribunal.
Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Even
assuming that party-list representatives comprise a sufficient
number and have agreed to designate common nominees to the
HRET and the CA, their primary recourse clearly rests with the
House of Representatives and not with the Supreme Court; Under
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House of
Representatives is necessary before petitioners may bring the
instant case to the court.—Even assuming that party-list
representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to
designate common nominees to the HRET and the CA, their
primary recourse clearly rests with the House of Representatives
and not with this Court. Under Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of
the Constitution, party-list representatives must first show to the
House that they possess the required numerical strength to be
entitled to seats in the HRET and the CA. Only if the House fails
to comply with the directive of the Constitution on proportional
representation of political parties in the HRET and the CA can
the party-list representatives seek recourse to this Court under
its power of judicial review. Under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before
petitioners may bring the instant case to the court. Consequently,
petitioners’ direct recourse to this Court is premature.
Same; Same; Same; Under the doctrine of separation of
powers, the Supreme Court may not interfere with the exercise by
the House of the constitutionally mandated duty to choose its
members to the HRET and the CA, absent a clear violation of the
Constitution or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.—The discretion of the House to choose its
members to the HRET and the CA is not absolute, being subject
to the mandatory constitutional rule on proportional
representation. However, under the doctrine of separation of
powers, the Court may not inter-

229

VOL. 393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 229

Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

fere with the exercise by the House of this constitutionally


mandated duty, absent a clear violation of the Constitution or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of separation of powers calls
for each branch of government to be left alone to discharge its
duties as it sees fit. Neither can the Court speculate on what
action the House may take if party-list representatives are duly
nominated for membership in the HRET and the CA.
Same; Same; Same; Judicial Review; Requisites.—It is a well-
settled rule that a constitutional question will not be heard and
resolved by the courts unless the following requirements of
judicial inquiry concur: (1) there must be an actual controversy;
(2) the person or party raising the constitutional issue must have
a personal and substantial interest in the resolution of the
controversy; (3) the controversy must be raised at the earliest
reasonable opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the
constitutional issue must be indispensable to the final
determination of the controversy.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The party raising the
constitutional issue must have “such personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends
for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.—The five
party-list representatives who are petitioners in the instant case
have not alleged that they are entitled to, and have been
unlawfully deprived of, seats in the HRET or the CA. Neither
have they claimed that they have been nominated by the party-
list groups in the House to the HRET or the CA. As such, they do
not possess the personal and substantial interest required to
confer them with locus standi. The party raising the
constitutional issue must have “such personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”
Same; Same; Same; The HRET and the CA are bereft of any
power to reconstitute themselves.—We likewise find no grave
abuse in the action or lack of action by the HRET and the CA in
response to the letters of Senator Pimentel. Under Sections 17
and 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and their internal
rules, the HRET and the CA are bereft of any power to
reconstitute themselves.
Same; The rendering of an advisory opinion is outside the
jurisdiction of the Court.—The issues raised in the petitions have
been rendered academic by subsequent events. On May 14, 2001,
a new set of district and party-list representatives were elected to
the House. The Court cannot now resolve the issue of proportional
representation in the HRET and the

230

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

CA based on the “present composition” of the House of


Representatives as presented by petitioners and the Solicitor
General. With the May 14, 2001 elections, it is certain that the
composition of the House has changed. In the absence of a proper
petition assailing the present composition of the HRET and the
CA, the instant petitions must fail. Otherwise, for the Court to
rule on the instant petitions at this time would be tantamount to
rendering an advisory opinion, which is outside our jurisdiction.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.


Prohibition and Mandamus.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.


     Eddie U. Tamondong for petitioners.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before this Court are two original petitions for prohibition


and mandamus with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction. Petitioners assail the composition of the House2
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (“HRET” for brevity) 3
and the Commission on Appointments (“CA” for brevity).
Petitioners pray that respondents be ordered to “alter,
reorganize, reconstitute and reconfigure” the composition of
the HRET and the CA to include party-list representatives
in accordance with Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise
known as the Party-List System Act. Petitioners further
pray that the HRET and the CA be enjoined from
exercising their functions until they have been reorganized.

Antecedent Facts

Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides for a


party-list system in the House of Representatives (“House”
for brevity), as follows:

_______________

2 Docketed as G.R. No. 141489.


3 Docketed as G.R. No. 141490.

231

VOL. 393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 231


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

“Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not


more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed
by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and
on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth and such other
sectors as may be provided by law except the religious sector.”

On March 3, 1995, the Party-List System Act took effect.


The Act sought to “promote proportional representation in
the election of representatives, to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system of registered
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined
political constituencies but who could contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a whole,
4
to become members of
the House of Representatives.”
On May 11, 1998, in accordance with the Party-List
System Act, national elections were held which included,
for the first time, the election through popular vote of
party-list groups and organizations whose nominees would
become members of the House. Proclaimed winners were
14 party-list representatives from 13 organizations,
including petitioners from party-list
5
groups Association of
Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Alyansang
Bayanihan

_______________

4 Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7941, “An Act Providing For The
Election Of Party-List Representatives Through The Party-List System,
and Appropriating Funds Therefor” (1995).
5 Erroneously cited in petitioners’ Amended Petitions as “Association of
Philippine Cooperatives.”

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

ng mga Magsasaka, Manggagawang Bukid at Mangingisda


(ABA), NATCO Network Party (COOP-NATCCO),
Akbayan! Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN), and Abanse!
Pinay (ABANSE). Due to the votes it garnered, APEC was
able to send 2 representatives to the House, while the 12
other party-list groups had one representative each. Also
elected were district representatives belonging to various
political parties.
Subsequently,
6
the House constituted its HRET and CA
contingent by electing its representatives to these two
constitutional bodies. In practice, the procedure involves
the nomination by the political parties of House members
7
who are to occupy seats in the HRET and the CA. From
available records, it does not appear that after the May 11,
1998 elections the party-list groups in the House
nominated any of their representatives to the HRET or the
CA. As of the date of filing of the instant petitions, the
House contingents to the HRET and the CA were composed
solely of district representatives belonging to the different
political parties.
On January 18, 2000, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.
wrote two8
letters addressed to then Senate President Blas
F. Ople, as Chairman of the CA, and to Associate Justice of
9
9
the Supreme Court Jose A.R. Melo (now retired), as
Chairman of the HRET. The letters requested Senate
President Ople and Justice Melo to cause the restructuring
of the CA and the HRET, respectively, to include party-list
representatives to conform to Sections 17 and 18, Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution.
In its meeting of January 20, 2000, the HRET resolved
to direct the Secretary of the Tribunal to refer Senator
Pimentel’s letter10to the Secretary General of the House of
Representatives. On the

_______________

6 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 19 states in part: “Sec. 19. The
Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be
constituted within thirty days after the Senate and House of
Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the
President and the Speaker. x x x”
7 Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 34, and Rollo of G.R. No. 141490, p. 46.
8 Rollo of G.R. No. 141490, p. 18.
9 Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 15.
10 Ibid., p. 56.

233

VOL. 393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 233


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

same day, HRET


11
Secretary Daisy B. Panga-Vega, in an
Indorsement of even date, referred the letter to House of
Representatives Secretary General Roberto P. Nazareno.
On February 2, 2000, petitioners filed with this Court
their Petitions for Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary
Injunction (with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order)
12
against the HRET, its Chairman and Members, 13
and
against the CA, its Chairman and Members. Petitioners
contend that, under the Constitution and the Party-List
System Act, party-list representatives
14
should have 1.2 or at
15
least 1 seat in the HRET, and 2.4 seats in the CA.
Petitioners charge that respondents committed grave abuse
of discretion in refusing to act positively on the letter of16
Senator Pimentel. In its Resolution of February 8, 2000,
the Court en banc directed the consolidation of G.R. No.
141490 with G.R. No. 141489.
On February
17
11, 2000, petitioners filed in both cases a
motion to amend their petitions to implead then Speaker
Manuel B. Villar, Jr. as an additional respondent, in his
capacity as Speaker of the House and as one of the
members of the CA. The Court granted both motions and
admitted the amended petitions.
Senator Pimentel filed the instant petitions on the
strength of his oath to protect, defend and uphold the
Constitution and in his capacity as taxpayer and as a
member of the CA. He was joined by 5 party-list
representatives from APEC, ABA, ABANSE, AKBAYAN
and COOP-NATCCO as co-petitioners.
Petitioners cite as basis Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

“Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each
have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
their respective

_______________

11 Ibid., p. 58.
12 Ibid., p. 3.
13 Rollo of G.R. No. 141490, p. 3.
14 Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 26.
15 Rollo of G.R. No. 141490, p. 32.
16 Ibid., p. 21.
17 Ibid., p. 23; Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 18.

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine


Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court
to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall
be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the
case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.”
“Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman,
twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and parties
or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except
in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments
submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from
their submission. 18The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of
all the Members.” (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioners also invoke the following provision of Section 11


of Republic Act No. 7941:
“Sec. 11. Number of Party-List Representatives.—The party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the
total number of the members of the House 19
of Representatives
including those under the party-list. x x x”

According 20 to the Solicitor General’s Consolidated


Comment, at the time petitioners filed the instant
petitions the House had 220 members, 14 of whom were
party-list representatives, constituting 6.3636% of the
House. Of the remaining 206 district representatives
affiliated with different political parties, 151 belonged to
LAMP (68.6354%), 36 belonged to LAKAS (16.3636%), 13 to
the Liberal Party (5.9090%), 1 member (0.4545%) each to
KBL, PDRLM, Aksyon Demokratiko, Reporma and
PROMDI, and 1 representative was an independent.

_______________

18 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Sections 17 and 18.


19 R.A. No. 7941, supra, see note 4.
20 Supra, see note 7.

235

VOL. 393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 235


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

21
In their Reply to Consolidated Comment, petitioners
alleged that, following the Solicitor General’s computation,
the LP and LAKAS were over-represented in the HRET
and the CA. Petitioners particularly assail the presence of
one LP representative each in the HRET and the CA, and
maintain that the LP representatives should be ousted and
replaced with nominees of the 14 partylist representatives.

The Issues

Petitioners raise the following issues:

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT COMPOSITION OF


THE HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT OF PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION BECAUSE THERE ARE NO
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
HRET.
2. WHETHER THE PRESENT MEMBERSHIP OF
THE HOUSE IN THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE
THERE ARE NO PARTY-LIST
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CA.
3. WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE HRET AND
THE CA TO RECONSTITUTE THEMSELVES TO
INCLUDE PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES
CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.

On the other hand, the Solicitor General argues that the


instant petitions are procedurally defective and
substantially lacking in merit for having been filed
prematurely, thus:

“It is a generally accepted principle that the averments in the


pleading determine the existence of a cause of action. In the
instant petitions, petitioners failed to aver that they or any one of
them was elected by a party or organization registered under the
party-list system as a Member of the HRET or CA to represent
said party or organization 22
under the party-list system of the
House of Representatives.”

_______________

21 Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 60, and Rollo of G.R. No. 141490, p. 71.
22 Supra, see note 7.

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

The Ruling of the Court

Petitioners urge the Court to rule on the issues raised in


the petitions under review, citing the 23
following
pronouncement in Guingona, Jr. v. Gonzales:

“Where constitutional issues are properly raised in the context of


the alleged facts, procedural questions acquire a relatively minor
significance, and the transcendental importance to the public of
the case demands that they be settled promptly and definitely
brushing aside x x x technicalities of procedure.”

Petitioners’ reliance on Guingona, Jr. v. Gonzales is


misplaced. The “procedural questions” that petitioners
want the Court to brush aside are not mere technicalities
but substantive matters that are specifically provided for in
the constitutional provisions cited by petitioners.
The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally
defined limits, to choose from among its district and party-
list representatives those who may occupy the seats
allotted to the House in the HRET24
and the CA. Section 18,
Article VI of the Constitution explicitly confers on the
Senate and on the House the authority to elect among their
members those who would fill the 12 seats for Senators and
12 seats for House members in the Commission on
Appointments. 25
Under Section 17, Article VI of the
Constitution, each chamber of Congress exercises the
power to choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who
among their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of
each chamber’s respective electoral tribunal.
These constitutional provisions are reiterated in Rules 3
and 4 (a) of the 1998 Rules of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal, to wit:

“Rule 3. Composition.—The Tribunal shall be composed of nine


Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court
to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall
be Members of

_______________

23 214 SCRA 789 (1992).


24 Supra, see note 18.
25 Ibid.

237

VOL. 393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 237


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

the House of Representatives who shall be chosen on the basis of


proportional representation from the political parties and the
parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The Senior Justice in the Tribunal shall be
its Chairman.
Rule 4. Organization.—(a) Upon the designation of the Justices
of the Supreme Court and the election of the Members of the House
of Representatives who are to compose the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal pursuant to Sections 17 and
19 of Article VI of the Constitution, the Tribunal shall meet for its
organization and adoption of such resolutions as it may deem
proper.” (Emphasis supplied)

Likewise, Section 1 of the Rules of the Commission on


Appointments provides:

“Section 1. Composition of the Commission On Appointments.—


Within thirty (30) days after both Houses of Congress shall have
organized themselves with the election of the Senate President
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Commission
on Appointments shall be constituted. It shall be composed of
twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented
herein. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, even assuming that party-list representatives


comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to designate
common nominees to the HRET and the CA, their primary
recourse clearly rests with the House of Representatives
and not with this Court. Under Sections 17 and 18, Article
VI of the Constitution, party-list representatives must first
show to the House that they possess the required
numerical strength to be entitled to seats in the HRET and
the CA. Only if the House fails to comply with the directive
of the Constitution on proportional representation of
political parties in the HRET and the CA can the party-list
representatives seek recourse to this Court under its power
of judicial review. Under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before
petitioners may bring the instant case to the court.
Consequently, petitioners’ direct recourse to this Court is
premature.
The discretion of the House to choose its members to the
HRET and the CA is not absolute, being subject to the
mandatory consti-

238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

26
tutional rule on proportional representation. However,
under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court may
not interfere with the exercise by the House of this
constitutionally mandated duty, absent a clear violation of
the Constitution or grave abuse27
of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of
separation of powers calls for each branch of government
28
to
be left alone to discharge its duties as it sees fit. Neither
can the Court speculate on what action the House may take
if party-list representatives are duly nominated for
membership in the HRET and the CA.
The instant petitions are bereft of any allegation that
respondents prevented the party-list groups in the House
from participating in the election of members of the HRET
and the CA. Neither does it appear that after the May 11,
1998 elections, the House barred the party-list
representatives from seeking membership in the HRET or
the CA. Rather, it appears from the available facts that the
party-list groups in the House at that time simply
refrained from participating in the election process. The
party-list representatives did not designate their nominees
even up to the time they filed the instant petitions, with
the predictable result that the House did not consider any
party-list representative for election to the HRET or the
CA. As the primary recourse of the party-list
representatives lies with the House of Representatives, the
Court cannot resolve the issues presented by petitioners at
this time.
Moreover, it is a well-settled rule that a constitutional
question will not be heard and resolved by the courts
unless the following requirements of judicial inquiry
concur: (1) there must be an actual controversy; (2) the
person or party raising the constitutional issue must have
a personal and substantial interest in the resolution of the
controversy; (3) the controversy must be raised at the
earliest reasonable opportunity; and (4) the resolution of
the constitutional

_______________

26 Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales, 219 SCRA 326 (1993); Daza vs. Singson,
180 SCRA 496 (1989).
27 Section I, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
28 Guingona, Jr. vs. CA, 292 SCRA 402 (1998).

239

VOL. 393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 239


Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal

issue must be indispensable


29
to the final determination of
the controversy.
The five party-list representatives who are petitioners in
the instant case have not alleged that they are entitled to,
and have been unlawfully deprived of, seats in the HRET
or the CA. Neither have they claimed that they have been
nominated by the party-list groups in the House to the
HRET or the CA. As such, they do not possess the personal
and substantial interest required to confer them with locus
standi. The party raising the constitutional issue must
have “such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy
as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court depends 30
for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”
We likewise find no grave abuse in the action or lack of
action by the HRET and the CA in response to the letters of
Senator Pimentel. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution and their internal rules, the HRET
and the CA are bereft of any power to reconstitute
themselves.
Finally, the issues raised in the petitions have been
rendered academic by subsequent events. On May 14, 2001,
a new set of district and party-list representatives were
elected to the House. The Court cannot now resolve the
issue of proportional representation in the HRET and the
CA based on the “present composition” of the House of
Representatives as presented by petitioners and the
Solicitor General. With the May 14, 2001 elections, it is
certain that the composition of the House has changed. In
the absence of a proper petition assailing the present
composition of the HRET and the CA, the instant petitions
must fail. Otherwise, for the Court to rule on the instant
petitions at this time would be tantamount to rendering
31
an
advisory opinion, which is outside our jurisdiction.

_______________

29 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000);


Board of Optometry v. Colet, 260 SCRA 88 (1996); Fernandez v. Torres,
215 SCRA 489 (1992); Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 204 SCRA 516
(1991); People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937).
30 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, supra.
31 Supra, see note 28.

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Fernandez vs. Novero, Jr.

WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for prohibition


and mandamus are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Panganiban,


Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
     Vitug, J., No part; a respondent in G.R. 141489.
     Mendoza, J., No part, being respondent in G.R. No.
141489.
     Austria-Martinez, J., On leave.

Petitions dismissed.
Notes.—The doctrine of separation of powers calls for
the other departments being left alone to discharge their
duties as they see fit. The legislative and executive
branches are not bound to seek the Court’s advice as to
what to do or not to do. (Tan vs. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677
[1972])
A congressional veto is subject to serious questions
involving the principle of separation of powers. (Philippine
Constitution Association vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 507
[1994])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like