COAcasescompiled

8/6/2019 COAcasescompiled

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/coacasescompiled 1/13

G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962

CARLOS CUNANAN, petitioner, vs.JORGE TAN, JR.,respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Gentlemen:

For your information and guidance, the resolution of thisCourt on even date is quoted below:

In Civil Case G.R. No. L-19721 "Carlos Cunanan vs. JorgeTan, Jr." the facts are:

Petitioner Carlos Cunanan — who claims to be a career employee, with more than thirty (30) years in the governmentservice — was, on June 6 or 8, 1961, appointed by thePresident of the Philippines as acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Thereupon, he qualifiedand assumed the duties and functions of said office. On

November 6, 1961, the President extended to him an ad interim appointment as Deputy Administrator of theReforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture andNatural Resources. On April 3, 1962, six (6) Senators andseven (7) members of the House of Representatives,purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments,rejected said ad interim appointment. On April 11, 1962,respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was designated by the Presidentas Acting Deputy Administrator of the ReforestationAdministration, Department of Agriculture and NaturalResources, and performed the function of said office, withoutthe consent of petitioner herein. Hence, soon thereafter, or on April 27, 1962, petitioner commenced the present quowarranto proceeding against respondent, contending that thelatter's designation is invalid, the office of DeputyAdministrator of the Reforestation Administration,

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, not beingvacant when he was designated thereto, because theaforesaid rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment isinvalid for several reasons.

When the first session of the Fifth Congress of thePhilippines opened on January 22, 1962, the members of theSenate were evenly divided into two (2) groups: there weretwelve (12) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, on theone hand, and on the other were twelve (12) Senatorsaffiliated with the Nacionalista Party and Nationalist-Citizens'Party. Hence, the Senate has been unable to elect a newSenate President, and Senator Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr., whowas President of the Senate during the immediatelypreceding Congress, continued to hold said office in anacting capacity. The House of Representatives, consisting of

seventy-two (72) members affiliated with the NacionalistaParty, twenty-nine (29) affiliated with the Liberal Party andone (1) not affiliated with any political party, electedCongressman Daniel F. Romualdez as Speaker of saidchamber.

In due course, the Commission on Appointments wasconstituted pursuant to the Constitution, on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties in eachHouse of Congress, as follows:

On the Part of the Senate

Nacionalista Party Liberal Party

Hon. Alejandro Almendras Hon. Eulogio Balao

Hon. Fernando Lopez Hon. Mariano J. Cuenco

Hon. Genaro Magsaysay Hon. Ferdinand Marcos

Hon. Cipriano Primicias Hon. Camilo Osias

Hon. Jose Roy Hon. Francisco (Soc) Rodrigo

Hon. Gil J. Puyat Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa

On the Part of the House of Representatives


Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer Hon. Eladio T. Balite

Hon. Wenceslao R. Lagumbay Hon. Manuel T. Cases

Hon. Felix A. Fuentebella Hon. Floro Crisologo

Hon. Rodolfo Ganzon Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas

Hon. Agustin Gatuslao

Hon. Rasid Lucman

Hon. Apolonio V. Marasigan

Hon. Maximo Noel

On March 21, 1962, by the vote of twenty-nine (29)

Congressmen affiliated with the Liberal Party and twenty-five(25) Congressmen affiliated with the Nacionalista Party,forming what is commonly known as the "Allied Majority,"declared vacant the seats of the twelve (12) members of theHouse of Representatives in the Commission of Appointments and re-elected, as members thereof for saidChamber, its former representatives in said Commission,except Congressmen Ganzon, Lucman and Lagumbay, inlieu of whom said "Allied Majority" elected CongressmenJose Alberto, Reynaldo Honrado and Jose Cojuangco, Jr.although still affiliated with the Nacionalista Party, thesethree (3) Congressmen form part of the "Allied Majority". The



members of Congress who took part in the alleged sessionof the Commission on Appointments on April 3, 1962, andrejected the ad interim appointment of petitioner herein were:

(a) Six (6) Senators affiliated with the Liberal Party, namely:Hon. Eulogio Balao, Hon. Mariano J. Cuenco, Hon.Ferdinand Marcos, Hon. Camilo Osias, Hon. Francisco (Soc)Rodrigo, Hon. Rogelio de la Rosa;

(b) Four (4) Congressmen affiliated with the same party, towit: Hon. Eladio T. Balite, Hon. Manuel T. Cases, Hon. FloroCrisologo, and Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas; and

(c) Three (3) Congressmen affiliated with the NacionalistaParty, but identified with the 'Allied Majority': Hon. JoseAlberto, Hon. Reynaldo Honrado and Hon. Jose CojuangcoJr.

Was the rejection of petitioner's ad interim appointment bythe aforementioned thirteen (13) members of Congress,purporting to act as the Commission on Appointments, validor not? The determination of this issue depends upon: (1)the legality of the resolution of the House of Representatives

of March 21, 1962, declaring the seats of its twelve (12)members in the Commission on Appointments vacant; and(2) the legality of the action of the House of Representativesin reconstituting the membership of the Commission onAppointments for said House. In view of the conclusion wehave reached with respect to the first question, we deem itunnecessary to pass upon the second question.

With respect to the first question, we hold that the sameshould be resolved in the negative. The Commission onAppointments is it creature of the Constitution. Although itsmembership is confined to members of Congress, saidCommission is independent of Congress. The powers of theCommission do not come from Congress, but emanatedirectly from the Constitution. Hence, it is not an agent of Congress. In fact, the functions of the Commissioner are

purely executive in nature. In order that the members of theCommission could properly discharge their duties as such, itis essential that their tenure therein be provided with acertain measure of stability to insure the necessary freedomof action.1äwphï1.ñët

Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effectthat "there shall be a Commission on Appointmentsconsisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) membersof the House of Representatives elected by each House,respectively, on the basis of proportional REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEREIN" , necessarily connotes the authority of eachHouse of Congress to see to it that this requirement is dulycomplied with. As a consequence, it may take appropriatemeasures, not only upon the initial organization of the

Commission, but, also, subsequently thereto. If by reason of successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which theybelonged and/or of their affiliation with another political party,the ratio in the representation of the political parties in theHouse is materially changed, the House is clothed withauthority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats inthe Commission on Appointments held by members of saidHouse belonging to the political party adversely affected bythe change and then fill said vacancies in conformity with theConstitution.

One thing, however, is to take these measures owing tochanges of permanent character in the representation of thepolitical parties in the House, and another thing for somemembers thereof affiliated with a political party to makecommon cause in certain matters with members of theHouse belonging to another political party. In other words, ashifting of votes at a given time, even if due to arrangementsof a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led

to the formation of the so-called "Allied Majority", does notsuffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise, the Commissionon Appointments may have to be reorganized as often asvotes shift from one side to another in the House. Theframers of our Constitution could not have intended to thusplace a constitutional organ, like the Commission onAppointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress.

We are aware of the statements made on the floor of our Constitutional Convention indicating the opinion of someofficers thereof or delegates thereto that members of theCommission on Appointments were to serve at the pleasureof the legislature. It should be noted, however, that saidstatements were made with reference to the Commission onAppointments of the National Assembly, the unicameral

legislature under our original Constitution. The statementsdid not refer and do not necessarily apply to the Commissionon Appointments under the present Constitution, asamended, for we now have a bicameral Congress, bothHouses of which are represented in the Commission onAppointments. If a House of Congress were free, at anytime, to declare vacant the position of its members in theCommission on Appointments, such House could, in effect,paralyze the entire Commission, without the consent of theother House. Such possibility could not have beencountenanced by the Constitutional Convention.

In his amended petition petitioner alleges that on April 27,1962, his ad interim appointment was confirmed by the"legitimate" Commission on Appointments, in a meeting saidto have been presided over by its chairman ex oficio, Hon.

Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr., and attended by six (6) Senators —namely. Senators Almendras, Lopez, Magsaysay, Primicias,Roy and Puyat — and eight (8) Congressmen — namely,Congressmen Aldeguer, Lagumbay, Fuentebella, Ganzon,Gatuslao, Lucman, Marasigan and Noel. Respondent hasdenied such allegation, but this cannot affect our foregoingview.

Without prejudice to an extended decision later on, the Courtholds, therefore, that the resolution of the House of Representatives of March 21, 1962, declining vacant theseats of the twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments andappointing others in lieu of some of them, as well as therejection of the ad interim appointment of petitioner bythirteen (13) alleged members of the Commission onAppointments as thus reorganized, and the designation of respondent Jorge Tan, Jr., as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agricultureand Natural Resources, on April 16, 1962, when said officewas not vacant, are null and void; that petitioner is entitled tohold said office; and that respondent should vacate the sameand turn it over to petitioner, with costs against saidrespondent.

Mr. Justice Padilla voted to dismiss the petition, upon theground that the effectivity of petitioner's ad interimappointment expired on December 30, 1961, for the reasons



given in his concurring opinion in Aytona vs. Castillo, G.R.No. L-18313 (January 19, 1962).

Yours truly,

(SGD.) PAULINO S. MARQUEZClerk of Court

Separate Opinions

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., concurring:

I concur in the resolution of the majority in view of the stand Ihave taken in one case of Cabili, et al. vs. Francisco, et al .On this point, we said:

. . . although in the selection of members of the Commission,party affiliation is a requisite qualification, the Constitutioncontemplates stability of tenure so as to insure for themembers thus selected that liberty of action (free from partyinterests or squabbles) which should surround the actuationsof the Commission on Appointments. They maintain that, asthe Constitution reserved no power in the Senate to remove

or substitute the Senate Members of the Commission, theseshould continue until that time when the Senate, upon theadvent of new members elected in a general election shouldorganize itself anew, and upon such organization shall selectpursuant to Constitutional authority another set of membersfor the aforesaid Commission. They emphasize that theselection is to be made within thirty days after theorganization of the Senate, which period being mandatoryconditions to the Senate's power to select; the Constitution'spurpose being to respect and enforce the will of theelectorate as represented by the parties therein at that time,and any subsequent realignment of the senators can not alter that popular will (and the selection made according to it)until after a new national election of senators is made, andthe new alignment is confirmed by the voters at large.

I am of the opinion that this Court can pass upon thisquestion it involving an interpretation of our Constitution.

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

The ad interim appointment of the petitioner as DeputyAdministrator, Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, made by the President of the Philippines on 6 November 1961, having lapsed or expired on the 30th of December 1961, for the reasons setforth in my opinion in the case of Aytona vs. Castillo, et al .,G.R. No. L-19313, 19 January 1962, and no newappointment of the petitioner to the same office having beenmade, he has no longer any right to the office to which heclaims he is entitled. His petition for a writ of quo warranto

should be denied.

This is sufficient to dispose of the case submitted to theCourt for judgment.1 However, the majority has deemed itwise to pass upon and determine other points raised by theparties to the case. In view thereof, I am constrained toexpress my view on those points very briefly due to theurgency of deciding the case before the adjournment of Congress.

It is urged for the petitioner that the Commission on

Appointments constituted on 23 February 1962 thatconfirmed on 27 April 1962 his ad interim appointment asDeputy Administrator, Reforestation Administration,Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, is the dulyconstituted Commission on Appointments, whereas theCommission on Appointments that confirmed on 3 May1962, the nomination of the respondent to the same office isnot.

There is no controversy as to membership of the Senators inthe Commission.

Only the membership of the Representatives in theCommission is disputed. On 23 February 1962 the followingRepresentatives were elected:


1. Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer 1. Hon. Eladio T. Balite

2. Hon. Wenceslao R.Lagumbay

2. Hon. Manuel Cases

3. Hon. Felix A.Fuentebella

3. Hon. Floro Crisologo

4. Hon. Rodolfo Ganzon 4. Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas

5. Hon. Agustin Gatuslao

6. Hon. ApolonioMarasigan

7. Hon. Maximo Noel

8. Hon. Rasid Lucman

On 21 March 1962 the House of Representatives declaredvacant the seats of the twelve members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments. Onthe same date, the following Representatives were elected:


1. Hon. Jose M. Aldeguer 1. Hon. Eladio T. Balite

2. Hon. Maximo Noel 2. Hon. Manuel T. Cases

3. Hon. Felix Fuentebella 3. Hon. Floro Crisologo



4. Hon. Agustin Gatuslao 4. Hon. Gerardo M. Roxas

5. Hon. Apolonio Marasigan

6. Hon. Jose Alberto

7. Hon. Reynaldo Honrado

8. Hon. Jose Cojuangco, Jr.

The action taken by the House of Representatives declaringvacant the seats of the twelve members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on Appointments cannotbe reviewed by the Court in like manner that the Court couldnot interfere with the election of the Speaker, Majority Floor Leaders, Chairmen and Members of committees andofficers, of the House. In other words, the Court cannotinterfere with the organization and functions of the House. 2

Such being the precedents on the point the action taken by

the House on 21 March 1962 cannot be reviewed and heldinvalid and of no effect. Likewise, the election of twelveRepresentatives on that same date cannot be reviewed bythe Court, unless a transgression of a provision of theConstitution had been committed. It is contended that theelection by the House of the twelve Representatives on 21March 1962 to sit in the Commission on Appointmentsinfringes upon the provisions of section 12, Article VI, of theConstitution. Said section provides:

There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House, respectively, onthe basis of proportional representation of the political partiestherein. The President of the Senate shall be the Chairmanex oficio of the Commission, but shall not vote, except in

case of tie.

Both parties agree that the number of Representatives to beelected by the House to sit in the Commission onAppointments based on the number of Representatives inthe House is eight of the Nacionalista Party and four for theLiberal Party, or that the proportional representation of thetwo political parties is eight and four, respectively.

The election of the twelve Representatives to sit in theCommission on Appointments is by the House. It is not bythe Party or by the leader of the Party or by a duly authorizedRepresentative belonging to that Party. At most, the Partythrough the last mentioned persons may propose or submitthe names of the Representatives of the Party who are to sitin the Commission on Appointments, but their election is bythe House. Unlike the Members of the Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and House who are chosen by the Senate andHouse upon nomination of the party having the largestnumber of votes and of the party having the second largestnumber of votes therein,3 the members of the Commissionon Appointments are elected by the Senate and the Houseon the basis of proportional representation. The proportionalnumber of Representatives elected by the House to sit in theCommission on Appointments, to wit: eight Nacionalistasand four Liberals being in accordance with the provision of the Constitution, their election should be held and declared

constitutional. Although a fixed tenure of membership in theCommission on Appointments is desirable, yet the actiontaken by the House declaring vacant the twelve seats in theCommission on Appointments is not unconstitutional andcannot be inquired into and reviewed by the Court and theelection by the House on 21 March 1962 of the twelvemembers of Representatives to sit in the Commission onAppointments being on the basis of proportional

representation should be upheld.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, Barrera,Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1Dissenting opinion in Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 19 Phil. 542, 548-550.

2Vera, et al. vs. Avelino, et al., 43 Off. Gaz. 3597; Avelino vs.Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17; and Caabili, et al. vs. Francisco, et al.,G.R. No. L-4638, 8 May 1951.

3

Section 11, Article VI, of the Constitution.

G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989

REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner, vs.REP. LUIS C.SINGSON and HON. RAOUL V. VICTORINO IN THELATTER'S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THECOMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, respondent.

CRUZ, J.:

After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the Houseof Representatives proportionally apportioned its twelveseats in the Commission on Appointments among theseveral political parties represented in that chamber,including the Lakas ng Bansa, the PDP-Laban, the NP-Unido, the Liberal Party, and the KBL, in accordance withArticle VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. Petitioner Raul A.Daza was among those chosen and was listed as arepresentative of the Liberal Party. 1

On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng DemokratikongPilipino was reorganized, resulting in a political realignmentin the House of Representatives. Twenty four members of the Liberal Party formally resigned from that party and joinedthe LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 andcorrespondingly reducing their former party to only 17members. 2

On the basis of this development, the House of Representatives revised its representation in theCommission on Appointments by withdrawing the seat



occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the newly-formed LDP. On December 5, 1988, the chamber elected anew set of representatives consisting of the originalmembers except the petitioner and including thereinrespondent Luis C. Singson as the additional member fromthe LDP. 3

The petitioner came to this Court on January 13, 1989, to

challenge his removal from the Commission onAppointments and the assumption of his seat by therespondent. Acting initially on his petition for prohibition andinjunction with preliminary injunction, we issued a temporaryrestraining order that same day to prevent both the petitioner and the respondent from serving in the Commission onAppointments.4

Briefly stated, the contention of the petitioner is that hecannot be removed from the Commission on Appointmentsbecause his election thereto is permanent under the doctrineannounced in Cunanan v. Tan. 5 His claim is that thereorganization of the House representation in the said bodyis not based on a permanent political realignment becausethe LDP is not a duly registered political party and has notyet attained political stability.

For his part, the respondent argues that the question raisedby the petitioner is political in nature and so beyond the

jurisdiction of this Court. He also maintains that he has beenimproperly impleaded, the real party respondent being theHouse of Representatives which changed its representationin the Commission on Appointments and removed thepetitioner. Finally, he stresses that nowhere in theConstitution is it required that the political party be registeredto be entitled to proportional representation in theCommission on Appointments.

In addition to the pleadings filed by the parties, a Commentwas submitted by the Solicitor General as amicus curiae incompliance with an order from the Court.

At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section 18, of theConstitution providing as follows:

Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointmentsconsisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officioChairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of theHouse of Representatives, elected by each House on thebasis of proportional representation from the political partiesand parties or organizations registered under the party-listsystem represented therein. The Chairman of theCommission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. TheCommission shall act on all appointments submitted to itwithin thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.

Ruling first on the jurisdictional issue, we hold that, contraryto the respondent's assertion, the Court has the competenceto act on the matter at bar. Our finding is that what is beforeus is not a discretionary act of the House of Representativesthat may not be reviewed by us because it is political innature. What is involved here is the legality, not the wisdom,of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from theCommission on Appointments. That is not a political questionbecause, as Chief Justice Concepcion explained in Tanadav. Cuenco. 6

... the term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance,what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, ... it refers "to those questions which,under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people intheir sovereign capacity, or in regard to which fulldiscretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislatureor executive branch of the Government." It is concerned withissues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a

particular measure.

In the aforementioned case, the Court was asked by thepetitioners therein to annul the election of two members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal of that chamber, on the groundthat they had not been validly nominated. The Senate thenconsisted of 23 members from the Nacionalista Party andthe petitioner as the lone member of the Citizens Party.Senator Lorenzo M. Tanada nominated only himself as theminority representative in the Tribunal, whereupon themajority elected Senators Mariano J. Cuenco. and FranciscoDelgado, from its own ranks, to complete the nine-mancomposition of the Tribunal as provided for in the 1935Constitution. The petitioner came to this Court, contendingthat under Article VI, Section 11, of that Charter, the sixlegislative members of the Tribunal were to be chosen by the

Senate, "three upon nomination of the party having thelargest number of votes and three of the party having thesecond largest number of votes therein." As the majorityparty in the Senate, the Nacionalista Party could nominateonly three members and could not also fill the other twoseats pertaining to the minority.

By way of special and affirmative defenses, the respondentscontended inter alia that the subject of the petition was aninternal matter that only the Senate could resolve. The Courtrejected this argument, holding that what was involved wasnot the wisdom of the Senate in choosing the respondentsbut the legality of the choice in light of the requirement of theConstitution. The petitioners were questioning the manner of filling the Tribunal, not the discretion of the Senate in doingso. The Court held that this was a justiciable and not a

political question, thus:

Such is not the nature of the question for determination inthe present case. Here, we are called upon to decidewhether the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado by theSenate, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, uponnomination by Senator Primicias-member and spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate-behalf of its Committee on Rules, contravenes theconstitutional mandate that said members of the SenateElectoral Tribunal shall be chosen "upon nomination ... of theparty having the second largest number of votes" in theSenate and hence, is null and void. The Senate is notclothed with "full discretionary authority" in the choice of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional limitations whichare claimed to be mandatory in nature. It is clearly within thelegitimate province of the judicial department to pass uponthe validity of the proceeding in connection therewith.

... whether an election of public officers has been inaccordance with law is for the judiciary. Moreover, where thelegislative department has by statute prescribed electionprocedure in a given situation, the judiciary may determinewhether a particular election has been in conformity withsuch statute, and particularly, whether such statute has beenapplied in a way to deny or transgress on constitutional or statutory rights ...' (1 6 C.J.S., 439; emphasis supplied)



It is, therefore, our opinion that we have, not only jurisdictionbut also the duty, to consider and determine the principalissue raised by the parties herein."

Although not specifically discussed, the same dispositionwas made in Cunanan v. Tan as it likewise involved themanner or legality of the organization of the Commission onAppointments, not the wisdom or discretion of the House in

the choice of its representatives.

In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objectionbecomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that,even if we were to assume that the issue presented beforeus was political in nature, we would still not be precludedfrom resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferredupon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the politicalquestion. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearlyprovides:

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in oneSupreme Court and in such lower courts as may beestablished by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice tosettle actual controversies involving rights which are legallydemandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

The respondent's contention that he has been improperlyimpleaded is even less persuasive. While he may betechnically correct in arguing that it is not he who caused thepetitioner's removal, we feel that this objection is also not aninsuperable obstacle to the resolution of this controversy. Wemay, for one thing, treat this proceeding as a petition for quowarranto as the petitioner is actually questioning therespondent's right to sit as a member of the Commission onAppointments. For another, we have held as early as in the

Emergency Powers Cases 7 that where serious constitutionalquestions are involved, "the transcendental importance tothe public of these cases demands that they be settledpromptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must,technicalities of procedure." The same policy has since thenbeen consistently followed by the Court, as in Gonzales v.Commission on Elections, 8 where we held through Chief Justice Fernando:

In the course of the deliberations, a serious proceduralobjection was raised by five members of the Court. It is their view that respondent Commission on Elections not beingsought to be restrained from performing any specific act, thissuit cannot be characterized as other than a mere requestfor an advisory opinion. Such a view, from the remedial lawstandpoint, has much to recommend it. Nonetheless, a

majority would affirm the original stand that under thecircumstances, it could still rightfully be treated as a petitionfor prohibition.

The language of justice Laurel fits the case: "All await thedecision of this Court on the constitutional question.Considering, therefore, the importance which the instantcase has assumed and to prevent multiplicity of suits, strongreasons of public policy demand that [its] constitutionality ...be now resolved.' It may likewise be added that theexceptional character of the situation that confronts us, the

paramount public interest, and the undeniable necessity for ruling, the national elections being barely six months away,reinforce our stand. It would appear undeniable, therefore,that before us is an appropriate invocation of our jurisdictionto prevent the enforcement of an alleged unconstitutionalstatute. We are left with no choice then; we must act on thematter.

Coming now to the more crucial question, the Court notesthat both the petitioner and the respondent are invoking thecase of Cunanan v. Tan to support their respective positions.It is best, therefore, to make a quick review of that case for aproper disposition of this one.

In the election for the House of Representatives held in1961, 72 seats were won by the Nacionalista Party, 29 bythe Liberal Party and 1 by an independent. Accordingly, therepresentation of the chamber in the Commission onAppointments was apportioned to 8 members from theNacionalista Party and 4 from the Liberal Party.Subsequently, 25 members of the Nacionalista Party,professing discontent over the House leadership, madecommon cause with the Liberal Party and formed what wascalled the Allied Majority to install a new Speaker and

reorganize the chamber. Included in this reorganization wasthe House representation in the Commission onappointments where three of the Nacionalista congressmenoriginally chosen were displaced by three of their partycolleagues who had joined the Allied Majority.

Petitioner Carlos Cunanan's ad interim appointment asDeputy Administrator of the Reforestration Administrationwas rejected by the Commission on Appointments as thusreorganized and respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was thereafter designated in his place. Cunanan then came to this Court,contending that the rejection of his appointment was null andvoid because the Commission itself was invalidly constituted.

The Court agreed. It noted that the Allied Majority was a

merely temporary combination as the Nacionalista defectorshad not disaffiliated from their party and permanently joinedthe new political group. Officially, they were still members of the Nacionalista Party. The reorganization of theCommission on Appointments was invalid because it was notbased on the proportional representation of the politicalparties in the House of Representatives as required by theConstitution. The Court held:

... In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if du to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, likethe one that has led to the formation of the so-called "AlliedMajority," does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House.Otherwise the Commission on Appointments may have to bereorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our Constitution could not haveintended to thus place a constitutional organ, like theCommission on Appointments, at the mercy of each Houseof Congress.

The petitioner vigorously argues that the LDP is not thepermanent political party contemplated in the Constitutionbecause it has not been registered in accordance with ArticleIX-B, Section 2(5), in relation to the other provisions of theConstitution. He stresses that the so-called party has not yetachieved stability and suggests it might be no different fromseveral other political groups that have died "a-bornin'," like



the LINA, or have subsequently floundered, like the UNIDO.

The respondent also cites Cunanan but from a differentviewpoint. According to him, that case expressly allowsreorganization at any time to reflect changes in the politicalalignments in Congress, provided only that such changesare permanent. The creation of the LDP constituting the bulkof the former PDP-Laban and to which no less than 24

Liberal congressmen had transferred was a permanentchange. That change fully justified his designation to theCommission on Appointments after the reduction of the LPrepresentation therein. Thus, the Court held:

Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effectthat "there shall be a Commission on Appointmentsconsisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) membersof the House of Representatives elected by each House,respectively, on the basis of proportionalREPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIESTHEREIN," necessarily connotes the authority of eachHouse of Congress to see to it that this requirement is dulycomplied with. As a consequence, it may take appropriatemeasures, not only upon the initial organization of theCommission, but also, subsequently thereto. If by reason of

successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which theybelonged and/or of their affiliation with another political party,the ratio in the representation of the political parties in theHouse is materially changed, the House is clothed withauthority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats inthe Commission on Appointments held by members of saidHouse belonging to the political party adversely affected bythe change and then fill said vacancies in conformity with theConstitution.

In the course of the spirited debate on this matter betweenthe petitioner and the respondent (who was supported by theSolicitor General) an important development has supervenedto considerably simplify the present controversy. Thepetitioner, to repeat, bases his argument heavily on the non-

registration of the LDP which, he claims has not provided thepermanent political realignment to justify the questionedreorganization. As he insists:

(c) Assuming that the so-called new coalesced majority isactually the LDP itself, then the proposed reorganization islikewise illegal and ineffectual, because the LDP, not being aduly registered political party, is not entitled to the "rights andprivileges granted by law to political parties' (See. 160, BPNo. 881), and therefore cannot legally claim the right to beconsidered in determining the required proportionalrepresentation of political parties in the House of Representatives. 9

xxx xxx xxx

... the clear constitutional intent behind Section 18, Article VI,of the 1987 Constitution, is to give the right of representationin the Commission on Appointment only to political partieswho are duly registered with the Comelec. 10

On November 23, 1989, however, that argumentboomeranged against the petitioner. On that date, theCommission on Elections in an en banc resolution affirmedthe resolution of its First Division dated August 28, 1989,granting the petition of the LDP for registration as a political

party. 11 This has taken the wind out of the sails of thepetitioner, so to speak, and he must now limp to shore asbest he can.

The petitioner's contention that, even if registered, the partymust still pass the test of time to prove its permanence is notacceptable. Under this theory, a registered party obtainingthe majority of the seats in the House of Representatives (or

the Senate) would still not be entitled to representation in theCommission on Appointments as long as it was organizedonly recently and has not yet "aged." The Liberal Party itself would fall in such a category. That party was created inDecember 1945 by a faction of the Nacionalista Party thatseceded therefrom to support Manuel A. Roxas's bid for thePresidency of the Philippines in the election held on April 23,1946. 12 The Liberal Party won. At that time it was only four months old. Yet no question was raised as to its right to berepresented in the Commission on Appointments and in theElectoral Tribunals by virtue of its status as the majority partyin both chambers of the Congress.

The LDP has been in existence for more than one year now.It now has 157 members in the House of Representativesand 6 members in the Senate. Its titular head is no less than

the President of the Philippines and its President is Senator Neptali A. Gonzales, who took over recently from Speaker Ramon V. Mitra. It is true that there have been, and there stillare, some internal disagreements among its members, butthese are to be expected in any political organization,especially if it is democratic in structure. In fact even themonolithic Communist Party in a number of socialist stateshas undergone similar dissension, and even upheavals. Butit surely cannot be considered still temporary because of such discord.

If the petitioner's argument were to be pursued, the 157members of the LDP in the House of Representatives wouldhave to be denied representation in the Commission onAppointments and, for that matter, also the ElectoralTribunal. By the same token, the KBL, which the petitioner

says is now "history only," should also be written off. Theindependents also cannot be represented because theybelong to no political party. That would virtually leave theLiberal Party only with all of its seventeen members to claimall the twelve seats of the House of Representatives in theCommission on Appointments and the six legislative seats inthe House Electoral Tribunal.

It is noteworthy that when with 41 members the Liberal Partywas alloted two of the seats in the Commission onAppointments, it did not express any objection. 13

Inconsistently, the petitioner is now opposed to thewithdrawal from it of one seat although its original number has been cut by more than half.

As for the other condition suggested by the petitioner, to wit,that the party must survive in a general congressionalelection, the LDP has doubtless also passed that test, if onlyvicariously. It may even be said that as it now commands thebiggest following in the House of Representatives, the partyhas not only survived but in fact prevailed. At any rate, thattest was never laid down in Cunanan.

To summarize, then, we hold, in view of the foregoingconsiderations, that the issue presented to us is justiciablerather political, involving as it does the legality and not thewisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the



Commission on Appointments as prescribed by theConstitution. Even if the question were political in nature, itwould still come within our powers of review under theexpanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII,Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority todetermine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting toexcess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by anybranch or instrumentality of the government. As for the

alleged technical flaw in the designation of the partyrespondent, assuming the existence of such a defect, thesame may be brushed aside, conformably to existingdoctrine, so that the important constitutional issue raisedmay be addressed. Lastly, we resolve that issue in favor of the authority of the House of Representatives to change itsrepresentation in the Commission on Appointments to reflectat any time the changes that may transpire in the politicalalignments of its membership. It is understood that suchchanges must be permanent and do not include thetemporary alliances or factional divisions not involvingseverance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation andpermanent shifts of allegiance from one political party toanother.

The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this

matter, leaving it to be settled by the House of Representatives or the Commission on Appointments as thebodies directly involved. But as our jurisdiction has beeninvoked and, more importantly, because a constitutionalstalemate had to be resolved, there was no alternative for usexcept to act, and to act decisively. In doing so, of course,we are not imposing our will upon the said agencies, or substituting our discretion for theirs, but merely dischargingour sworn responsibility to interpret and apply theConstitution. That is a duty we do not evade, lest weourselves betray our oath.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporaryrestraining order dated January 13, 1989, is LIFTED. TheCourt holds that the respondent has been validly elected asa member of the Commission on Appointments and is

entitled to assume his seat in that body pursuant to ArticleVI, Section 18, of the Constitution. No pronouncement as tocosts.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cows, Griño-

Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., took no part.

G.R. No. 86649 July 12, 1990

ANNA DOMINIQUE M.L. COSETENG and KABABAIHANPARA SA INANG BAYAN, petitioners, vs.HON. RAMON V.MITRA, JR., as speaker of the House of Representativesof the Congress of the Philippines; HON. FRANCISCOSUMULONG, as Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines;HON. JOVITO SALONGA, as Ex-Oficio Chairman of theCommission on Appointments; HON. ROQUE R. ABLAN,

JR., HON. LORNA L. VERANO-YAP, HON. MIGUELROMERO, HON. ANTONIO V. CUENCO, HON.ROGACIANO M. MERCADO, HON. ALAWADIN T.BANDON, JR., HON. JOSE L. CABOCHAN, HON.CARLOS R. IMPERIAL, HON. MA. CLARA L. LOBREGAT,HON. NATALIO M. BELTRAN, JR., HON. CARMELO J.LOCSIN & HON. LUIS C. SINGSON, as Members of theCommission on Appointments for the House of

Representatives of the CONGRESS OF THEPHILIPPINES, respondents.

Perfecto V. Fernandez, Jose P. Fernandez and Cristobal P.Fernandez for petitioners.

Panganiban, Benitez, Barinaga & Bautista Law Offices for Lorna L. Verano-Yap.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

The congressional elections of May 11, 1987 resulted in the

election to the House of Representatives of the candidates of diverse political parties such as the PDP-Laban, Lakas ngBansa (LB), Liberal Party (LP), NP-Unido, Kilusan ngBagong Lipunan (KBL), Panaghiusa, Kababaihan Para saInang Bayan (KAIBA), and some independents. Petitioner Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng was the only candidateelected under the banner of KAIBA.

On August 26, 1987, the House of Representatives, uponnomination by the Majority Floor Leader, Cong. FranciscoSumulong, elected from the Coalesced Majority, eleven (11)out of twelve (12) congressmen to represent the House inthe Commission on Appointments. They were:

1. Hon. Miguel Romero LP (Liberal Party)2. Hon. Antonio V.Cuenco LB-Panaghiusa3. Hon. Rogaciano Mercado LB

(Lakas ng Bayan)4. Hon. Raul Daza LP5. Hon. Alawadin T.Bandon Jr. PDP-Laban6. Hon. Jose Cabochan PDP-Laban7.Hon. Lorna L. Verano-Yap LP8. Hon. Carlos R. Imperial IND9. Hon. Ma. Clara L. Lobregat IND10. Hon Natalio M.Beltran, Jr. LB/Unido/NP11. Hon. Carmelo J. Locsin PDP-Laban/LB

(pp. 115-116, Rollo.)

On September 22, 1987, upon nomination of the MinorityFloor Leader, the House elected Honorable Roque Ablan,Jr., KBL, as the twelfth member of the Commission onAppointments, representing the Coalesced Minority in theHouse.

A year later, on September 16, 1988, the "Laban ngDemokratikong Pilipino" (LDP, for brevity) was organized asa political party. As 158 out of 202 members of the House of Representatives formally affiliated with the LDP, the Housecommittees, including the House representation in theCommission on Appointments, had to be reorganized.

On October 8, 1988, petitioner Coseteng wrote a letter toSpeaker Ramon Mitra requesting that as representative of KAIBA, she be appointed as a member of the Commissionon Appointments and House Electoral Tribunal (p. 15, Rollo).



Her request was endorsed by nine (9) congressmen,namely, Hon. Lally Laurel-Trinidad, Bonifacio Gillego, LuzReyes Bakunawa, Gerardo Cabochan, Jose D. Aspiras,Oscar Santos, Eduardo N. Joson, Antonio H. Cerilles andIsacio Pelaez.

On December 5, 1988, the House of Representatives, onmotion of the Majority Floor Leader and over the objection of

Cong. Raul A. Daza, LP, revised the House majoritymembership in the Commission on Appointments to conformwith the new political alignments by replacing Rep. Raul A.Daza, LP, with Rep. Luis C. Singson, LDP, as follows:

1. Hon. Miguel L. Romero LDP2. Hon. Antonio V. CuencoLDP3. Hon. Rogaciano M. Mercado LDP4. Hon. Alawadin T.Bandon, Jr. LDP5. Hon. Jose L. Cabochan LDP6. Hon.Carlos R. Imperial LDP7. Hon. Maria Clara L. Lobregat LDP8. Hon. Natalio M. Beltran, Jr. LDP9. Hon. Carmelo J. LocsinLDP10. Hon. Luis C. Singson LDP11. Hon. Lorna L. Verano-Yap LP

(p. 122, Rollo.)

Congressman Ablan, KBL, was retained as the 12th member representing the House minority.

On February 1, 1989, Congresswoman Coseteng and her party, the KAIBA, filed this Petition for Extraordinary LegalWrits (which may be considered as a petition for quowarranto and injunction) praying this Court to declare as nulland void the election of respondent Ablan, Verano-Yap,Romero, Cuenco, Mercado, Bandon, Cabochan, Imperial,Lobregat, Beltran, Locsin, and Singson, as members of theCommission on Appointments, to enjoin them from acting assuch and to enjoin also the other respondents fromrecognizing them as members of the Commission onAppointments on the theory that their election to thatCommission violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation because:

1) the New Majority (158 LDP members out of the 202members of the House) is entitled to only nine (9) seats outof the twelve to be filled by the House (p. 29, Rollo);

2) the members representing the political parties, or coalitions thereof, must be nominated by their respectivepolitical parties or coalitions;

3) the nomination and election of respondent Verano-Yap bythe respondents as representative of the minority was clearlyinvalid (p. 31, Rollo); and

4) that similarly invalid was the retention of respondent Ablan

as Minority member in the Commission because he wasneither nominated nor elected as such by the minority partyor parties in the House (p. 31, Rollo).

Petitioner Coseteng further alleged that she is qualified to sitin the Commission on Appointments as a representative of the Minority because she has the support of nine (9) other congressmen and congresswomen of the Minority (p. 31,Rollo).

In their collective Comment, the respondents House of

Representatives, the Speaker, the Majority Floor Leader, themembers of the Commission on Appointments includingCongressman Roque R. Ablan, but excludingCongresswoman Lorna Verano-Yap (who filed a separateComment), alleged: (1) that the legality of the reorganizationof the Commission on Appointments is a political question,hence, outside the jurisdiction of this Court to decide, and (2)that in any case, the reorganization was "strictly in

consonance with Section 18, Article VI of the 1987Constitution" i .e., on the basis of proportional representationof the political parties, considering the majority coalition "as aform of a political party" (pp. 115, 118, Rollo). They further alleged that as of March 3, 1989, 160 members of the House(including 26 former Liberals) had expressly renounced inwriting their respective political party affiliations and formallyaffiliated with the LDP leaving only 15 Liberals in the House(p. 119, Rollo).i•t•c-aüsl After its petition for registration as apolitical party was granted on August 28, 1989 by the FirstDivision of the COMELEC) and affirmed on November 23,1989 by the COMELEC en banc , the LDP become the newMajority in the House. They finally argued that as KAIBA ispart of the Coalesced Majority which supports theadministration of President Corazon C. Aquino, not of theminority, petitioner is bound by the choice of the CoalescedMajority of the members who would sit in the Commission on

Appointments.

Representative Lorna Verano-Yap, in her comment allegedthat the petitioner has no better light than those alreadyselected, to be chosen as a member of the Commission onAppointments because: (1) the Constitution was not violatedin electing Yap and eleven (11) other House members to theCommission on Appointments; (2) respondent Yap is arightful incumbent; and (3) petitioner's claim to a seat on theCommission on Appointments is without legal and factualbasis (pp. 217-218, Rollo).

The Commission on Appointments took a neutral stand onthe petition as the issues involved may touch on the validityof its organization and the legality of the entitlement of the

LDP or the LP to representation, which are raised in the caseof Daza vs. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, then pending beforethis Court (pp. 195-198, Rollo).

The issue here is whether the members of the House in theCommission on Appointments were chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties thereinas provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitutionwhich reads:

Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointmentsconsisting of the President of the Senate, as ex oficioChairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of theHouse of Representatives elected by each House on thebasis of proportional representation from the political partiesand parties or organizations registered under the party-list

system represented therein. The chairman of theCommission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. TheCommission shall act on all appointments submitted to itwithin thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members. (Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.)

After deliberating on the petition and the comments of therespondents, we hold that the petition should be dismissed,not because it raises a political question, which it does not,but because the revision of the House representation in the



Commission on Appointments is based on proportionalrepresentation of the political parties therein as provided inSection 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

The "political question" issue was settled in Daza vs.Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989, where thisCourt ruled that "the legality, and not the wisdom, of themanner of filling the Commission on Appointments as

prescribed by the Constitution" is justiciable, and, "even if thequestion were political in nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferredupon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, whichincludes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction hasbeen committed by any branch or instrumentality of thegovernment."

The composition of the House membership in theCommission on Appointments was based on proportionalrepresentation of the political parties in the House. There are160 members of the LDP in the House. They represent 79%of the House membership (which may be rounded out to80%). Eighty percent (80%) of 12 members in theCommission on Appointments would equal 9.6 members,

which may be rounded out to ten (10) members from theLDP. The remaining two seats were apportioned to the LP(respondent Lorna Verano-Yap) as the next largest party inthe Coalesced Majority and the KBL (respondent RoqueAblan) as the principal opposition party in the House. Thereis no doubt that this apportionment of the Housemembership in the Commission on Appointments was done"on the basis of proportional representation of the politicalparties therein."

The other political parties or groups in the House, such aspetitioner's KAIBA (which is presumably a member also of the Coalesced Majority), are bound by the majority's choices.Even if KAIBA were to be considered as an opposition party,its lone member (petitioner Coseteng) represents only .4% or less than 1% of the House membership, hence, she is not

entitled to one of the 12 House seats in the Commission onAppointments. To be able to claim proportional membershipin the Commission on Appointments, a political party shouldrepresent at least 8.4% of the House membership, i .e., itshould have been able to elect at least 17 congressmen or congresswomen.

The indorsements of the nine (9) congressmen andcongresswomen in favor of the petitioner's election to theCommission are inconsequential because they are notmembers of her party and they signed identicalindorsements in favor of her rival, respondentCongresswoman Verano-Yap.

There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that the Housemembers in the Commission on Appointments should havebeen nominated and elected by their respective politicalparties. The petition itself shows that they were nominatedby their respective floor leaders in the House. They wereelected by the House (not by their party) as provided inSection 18, Article VI of the Constitution. The validity of their election to the Commission on Appointments — eleven (11)from the Coalesced Majority and one from the minority — isunassailable.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes,Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., took no part.

G.R. No. 106971 March 1, 1993

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. and LAKAS-NATIONALUNION OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (LAKAS-NUCD),petitioners, vs.NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ALBERTOROMULO and WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, respondents.

NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, petitioner-in-intervention.

Ricardo G. Nepomuceno for petitioners.

Gonzales, Batiller, Bilog & Associates for respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

In motions separately filed by respondent Senator WigbertoE. Tañada on October 27, 1992 and respondents SenatePresident Neptali A. Gonzales and Senator Alberto Romuloon October 30, 1992, said respondents moved for a

reconsideration of our decision dated October 20, 1992, onthe following grounds:

Senator Tañada alleges that:

1) The decision was premised on an erroneous appreciationof relevant factual precedents;

2) The decision ignored the reality of the multi-party systemrecognized both by the letter and spirit of the 1935 and 1987Constitutions;

3) It is mandatory to fill up twelve (12) seats in theCommission on Appointments;

4) The Senate did not act with grave abuse of discretionwhen it elected respondent Tañada to the Commission onAppointments.

In their Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification, SenatorsGonzales and Romulo allege:

1) That the decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court'sruling in the two cases of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr . 1 and Dazavs. Singson. 2



2) It is mandatory to have twelve (12) members of theCommission of Appointments to enable it to function as aconstitutional body.

3) The Tolentino Compromise Formula was adopted by theSenate and accepted by all political parties and must governthe selection of respondent Senators to the Commission onAppointments.

4) The election of the respondents Senators is in compliancewith the multi-party system which contemplates arealignment of political parties to remove fractionalmembership of any party in the Commission.

On December 16, 1992, the petitioner-in interventionNationalist People's Coalition (NPC) filed its separateComments to the Motions of respondents Senators while thepetitioners filed on January 7, 1993 their separateComments on the Motion of the respondents.

Considering the grounds set forth in the Motions of therespondents and in the light of the reasons/argumentssubmitted in refutation thereof, We deny both Motions for

Reconsideration on the following grounds:

1) The decision is based on a simple interpretation andapplication of Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitutionand We quote pertinent portions thereof.

It is an established fact to which all the parties agree that themathematical representation of each of the political partiesrepresented in the Senate is as follows:

LDP — 7.5LP-PDP-LABAN — .5NPC — 2.5LAKAS-NUCD— 1.5

It is also a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them

is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the ruleon proportional representation of each of the political parties.A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of theConstitution leads to no other manner of application than asabove. The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majorityin the Senate converted a fractional half membership into awhole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to7.5 to be able to elect Senator Romulo. In so doing one other party's fractional membership was correspondingly reducedleaving the latter's representation in the Commission onAppointments to less than their proportional representation inthe Senate. This is a clearly a violation of Section 18because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate thatmembership in the Commission be based on the proportionalrepresentation of the political parties. The election of Senator Romulo gave more representation to the LDP and reduced

the representation of one political party — either the LAKAS-NUCD or the NPC.

xxx xxx xxx

We find the respondent's claim to membership in theCommission on Appointments by nomination and election of the LDP majority in the Senate as not in accordance withSection 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution andtherefore violative of the same because it is not incompliance with the requirement that twelve senators shall

be elected on the basis of proportional representation of thepolitical parties represented therein. To disturb the resultingfractional membership of the political parties in theCommission on Appointments by adding together two halvesto make a whole is a breach of the rule on proportionalrepresentation because it will give the LDP an addedmember in the Commission by utilizing the fractionalmembership of the minority political party, who is deprived of

half a representation.

The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation ismandatory in character and does not leave any discretion tothe majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard therule on proportional representation; otherwise, the party witha majority representation in the Senate or the House of Representatives can by sheer force of numbers impose itswill on the hapless minority. By requiring a proportionalrepresentation in the Commission on Appointments, Section18 in effect works as a check on the majority party in theSenate and helps to maintain the balance of power. No partycan claim more than what is entitled to under such rule. Toallow it to elect more than its proportional share of membersis to confer upon such a party a greater share in themembership in the Commission on Appointments and more

power to impose its will on the minority, who by the sametoken, suffers a diminution of its rightful membership in theCommission.3

The membership of the late Senator Lorenzo Tañada in theCommission on Appointments for the year alluded to byrespondents is not disputed. The questioned decisionhowever refers to the former Senator's Membership in theCommission during his first election as Senator in 1953-1954. 4 In the following years the composition of theCommission on Appointments showed varying membershipfrom the Nacionalista Party and Liberal Party, notdiscounting the various coalitions of the rival groups withintheir own ranks. During this period, his membership in theCommission was acquiesced to by the other members of theSenate, including the Nationalista Party which had a

fractional vote. His membership in the Commission wasnever contested nor disputed by any party nor member of the Senate so that the question of whether his sitting asmember of the Commission was constitutionality valid or notnever reached the Court. The older Tañada's membership inthe Commission on Appointments cannot thus be consideredby respondent Senator Tañada as a precedent sufficient tooverrule the clear mandate of Article VI, Section 18 of theConstitution.

It is a matter of record that in the political ventures of the lateSenator Lorenzo Tañada, he had his Citizens Party coalescewith the Nationalista Party and got himself elected asSenator under the banner of the latter party. His election tothe Commission was principally due to the alliance of hisCitizens Party with the Nationalista Party and not becausehe was elected thereto on the strength of his being the lonerepresentative of the Citizens' Party. 5 Senator Tañada wasincluded in the Nationalista Party ticket in 1953 until heparted ways temporarily with the same before the end of 1955. In 1959 he ran as a guest candidate of the NationalistaParty for a term of 6 years and again gotre-elected in 1965for another 6-year term under the Nationalista Party. TheNationalista-Citizens Party coalition of 12 Senators in theSenate from1965-1967 gave the coalition 6 members in theCommission on Appointments, including the late Senator Lorenzo Tañada. As early as those years, the Senaterecognized the rule on proportional representation in the



Commission by resorting to a coalition of political parties inorder to resolve and avoid fractional membership in theCommission. This practice was repeated in1968-1970 wherethe lone elected Senator of the Citizens Party wasnominated and elected to the Commission on Appointmentsas the Senator to complete a whole number in theproportional representation to the Commission, with the lateSenator Tañada becoming the 16th Senator of the Coalition,

enabling it to put 8 members in the Commission. Likewise, in1970, the late Senator Tañada filled up the 18th membershipof the Coalition to become the 9th member representing theCoalition in the Commission.

The election of the late Senator Lorenzo Tañada to theCommission on Appointments does not reflect any practiceor tradition in the Senate which can be considered as aprecedent in the interpretation of the constitutional provisionon proportional representation in the Commission onAppointments. No practice or tradition, established by amere tolerance, can, without judicial acquiescence, ripen intoa doctrine of practical construction of the fundamental law. Inthe absence of judicial confirmation of the constitutionality of the challenged legislative practice the repeated erroneouslegislative interpretation of a constitutional provision, does

not vest power on the legislature.

6

2) We take note of an erroneous reference in our decision tothe listing of the party affiliation of the Senators based on theresult of the election on May 11, 1992, giving the LDP only15 members and including Senator Teofisto Guingona as amember of the Lakas-NUCDP. Respondents, however,accepted the fact that for purposes of determining theproportional representatives of each political party to theCommission on Appointments, the basis thereof is the actualnumber of members of each political party at the time of election of the members of the Commission on Appointmentsin the Senate. 7 In fact, respondents affirmed that theaffiliation of Senator Guingona with the Lakas-NUCDPupheld the doctrine enunciated in Daza vs. Singson, 8

recognizing changes in alignments of membership in the

Commission based on changing political alignments at thetime of the organization of the Commission on Appointments.The issue therefore has no significance as an argument toset aside our decision.

3) Senator Tañada was actually nominated by the LPbecause the house rules require that the party must makethe nomination. In fact he nominated himself asrepresentative of the LP-LDP-LABAN. It was the MajorityLeader, an LDP Senator, (Senator Romulo) who presentedthe motion to elect respondent Senator Tañada (along withthe Senators belonging to the other Minority parties — NPCand LAKAS-NUCD) as part of his function or duty to presentfor election and votation those previously nominated by thevarious political parties. In nominating the twelve (12)Senators to the membership in the Commission onAppointments, Senator Romulo moved:

Mr. President, pursuant to the Motion just approved, I havethe honor to submit for election to the Commission onAppointments the 12 Senators to compose its membership :Senators Angara, Herrera, Alvarez, Aquino, Mercado, Ople,Sotto and Romulo for the LDP ; Senators Tolentino andOsmeña for NPC ; Senator Rasul, for Lakas-NUCD; andSenator Tañada for LP-PDP, Mr. President. 9

4) This Court has ruled that, under Article VI, Section 18 of

the Constitution providing for a multi-party system,entitlement to proportional representation in the Commissionon Appointments requires a minimum membership in eachhouse. 10 The statement of this Court in Daza vs. Singson 11

to the effect that "under the Constitutional provision onmembership of the Commission on Appointments, themembers thereof are NOT limited to the majority andminority parties therein but extends to all the political parties

represented in each house of Congress", does not andshould not be construed to mean that all political parties,irrespective of numerical representation in the Senate, areentitled by Constitutional fiat to at least one representation inthe Commission. The Supreme Court in the subsequentcase of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr . 12 made this clear where itruled that proportional representation in the Commission onAppointments requires a minimum membership of a party ineach house. The mere presence of one Senator belonging toa political party does not ipso facto entitle such a party tomembership in the Commission on Appointments.

5) We have declared that the Constitution does not requirethat the full complement of 12 Senators be elected to themembership in the Commission on Appointments before itcan discharge its functions and that it is not mandatory to

elect 12 Senators to the Commission. The overridingdirective of Article VI, Section 18 is that there must be aproportional representation of the political parties in themembership of the Commission on Appointments and thatthe specification of 12 members to constitute its membershipis merely an indication of the maximum complementallowable under the Constitution. The act of filling up themembership thereof cannot disregard the mandate of proportional representation of the parties even if it results infractional membership in unusual situations like the case atbar.

Section 18 provides, in part, as follows:

There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate as ex-officio Chairman, twelve

Senators, and . . . , elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation . . . .

The respondent's contention that the use of the word "shall"in Section 18 indicating the composition of the Commissionon Appointments makes the election of the Senatorsmandatory, omitting that part of Section 18 which providesthat (they shall be) elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation. This interpretation finds supportin the case of Tañada vs. Cuenco, 13 where this Court heldthat the constitutional provision makes mandatory theelection of the specified number of Senators to theCommission on Appointments but also ruled that they shouldbe elected on the basis of proportional representation of thepolitical parties. In case of conflict in interpretation, the latter mandate requiring proportional representation must prevail.

Such interpretation is the only correct and rationalinterpretation which the court can adopt in consonance withits solemn duty to uphold the Constitution and give effect themeaning intended by its framers to every clause and wordthereof.

The Constitution does not require the election and presenceof twelve Senators and twelve Representatives in order thatthe Commission may function. Article VI, Section 18 whichdeals with the Commission on Appointments, provides that"the Commission shall rule by majority vote of all the



members", and in Section 19 of the same Article, it isprovided that the Commission "shall meet only whileCongress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or amajority of all its Members, to discharge such powers andfunctions as are herein conferred upon it". In implementingthese provisions, the Rules of the Commission onAppointments provide that the presence of at least thirteen(13) members is necessary to constitute a quorum,

"Provided however, that at least four (4) of the membersconstituting the quorum should come from either house". 14

Even if the composition of the Commission is fixed by theConstitution, it can perform its functions even if not fullyconstituted, so long as it has the required quorum, which isless than the full complement fixed by the Constitution. Andthe Commission can validly perform its functions andtransact its business even if only ten (10) Senators areelected thereto. Even if respondent Senator Tañada isexcluded from the Commission on Appointments for violationof the rule on proportional representation, the party herepresents still has representation in the Commission in thepresence of house members from the LP-LDP-LABAN suchas Congressman Juan Ponce Enrile.

Respondents ask for a clarification of our statement which

suggested a practical solution to break the impasse in themembership of the Senate in the Commission onAppointments, which we quote:

. . . On the other hand, there is nothing to stop any of thepolitical parties from forming a coalition with another politicalparty in order to fill up the two vacancies resulting from thisdecision. 15

The statement is merely a suggestion but not an exclusivesolution. It is not part of the disposition of the case. It doesnot contemplate a realignment of political parties, asotherwise this Court would have explicitly said so. What weintimated is merely this: That those entitled to fractionalmemberships may join their half-memberships to form a fullmembership and together nominate one from their coalition

to the Commission on Appointments. For example, the NPCand the LAKAS-NUCD may join their half-memberships and

jointly nominate one of their own Senators to theCommission. In the same way the LDP and the LP-PDP-LABAN may nominate Senator Wigberto Tañada to fill up theother slot to complete the membership to twelve. But thelatter, as a coalition, may not insist in electing both Senator Tañada and Senator Romulo to fill up two slots because thisis certainly a violation of the rule on proportionalrepresentation.

Who decides the question of proportionality? The power tochoose who among them will sit as members of theCommission on Appointments belongs to the Senate. Thenumber of senators is fixed by the Constitution to twelve, butthe numbers of senators to be chosen must comply with the

rule on proportional representation. The question of whointerprets what is meant by proportional representation hasbeen a settled rule — that it belongs to this Court.

The acceptance by the Senate of Senator Tolentino'sformula to settle temporarily the impasse concerning themembership in the Commission on Appointments by leavingthe final decision to the Supreme Court is a Senaterecognition that the determination of proportionalrepresentation under Article VI, Section 18 of theConstitution is a function of this Court.

Once a controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court, itbecomes a legal issue which the Court is bound byConstitutional mandate to decide. The framers of our Constitution, in borrowing from constitutions of other states,thought it wise to vest in the Supreme Court the role in finalarbiter in cases of conflicts in the interpretation of thefundamental law. In this role, the Court serves as a check on

the unbridled use of power by the legislative majority tosilence the minority. Democracy may breed but it will notsanction tyranny by force of numbers.

The election of respondents Senators Tañada and Romulo isa clear disregard of the constitutional provision and whendone over the objections of their colleagues in the Senate,constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. We quote from our decision:

. . . The election of Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada asmembers of the Commission on Appointments by the LDPMajority in the Senate was clearly a violation of Section 18Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Their nomination andelection by the LDP Majority by sheer force of superiority innumbers during the Senate organization meeting of August

27, 1992 was done in grave abuse of discretion. Wherepower is exercised in a manner inconsistent with thecommand of the Constitution, and by reason of numericalstrength, knowingly and not merely inadvertently, saidexercise amounts to abuse of authority granted by law andgrave abuse of discretion is properly found to exist. 16

For lack of merit, the Motions for Reconsideration areDENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur .

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

COAcasescompiled

Documents

Transcript of COAcasescompiled