Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
*
G.R. No. 141489. November 29, 2002.
* EN BANC.
228
229
230
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Antecedent Facts
_______________
231
_______________
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
_______________
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
“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
_______________
235
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
_______________
21 Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 60, and Rollo of G.R. No. 141490, p. 71.
22 Supra, see note 7.
236
_______________
237
238
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
_______________
240
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——