Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

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, DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, DANTON Q.
1
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
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
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
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 House of Representatives Electoral
2
Tribunal (“HRET” for brevity) and the Commission on
3
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

“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
4
as a
whole, 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 groups Association of
5
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

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 who are to occupy seats in the
7
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
8
two letters addressed to then Senate President Blas F. Ople, as
Chairman of the CA, and to Associate
9
Justice of 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 letter to the
10
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

same day, 11HRET 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) against the HRET, its
12
Chairman 13and Members, and against the CA, its Chairman and
Members. Petitioners contend that, under the Constitution and the
Party-List System Act, party-list representatives should have 1.2 or
14 15
at 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 of Senator Pimentel. In its
16
Resolution of February 8, 2000, the Court en banc directed the
consolidation of G.R. No. 141490 with G.R. No. 141489.
17
On February 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

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. The Commission
18
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 of Representatives including those under the
19
party-list. x x x”
20
According 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

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 under the party-list
22
system of the House of Representatives.”
_______________
21 Rollo of G.R. No. 141489, p. 60, and Rollo of G.R. No. 141490, p. 71.
236

The Ruling of the Court
Petitioners urge the Court to rule on the issues raised in the petitions
under review, citing the following pronouncement in Guingona, Jr.
23
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 HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the
24
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 25on 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.
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).

25 Ibid.
237
VOL. 393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 237

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

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 27
abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Otherwise,
the doctrine of separation of powers calls for each branch of
28
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.
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
issue must be indispensable to the final determination of the

29
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 for illumination of difficult
30
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
31
rendering 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.
240

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 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL.

393, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 227

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., REPRESENTATIVES

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. REPRESENTATIVES

Separation of Powers; Electoral Tribunals; Commission on

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

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED