arroyo vs. hret.docx

8/17/2019 arroyo vs. hret.docx

1/40

1

HRET’s Jurisdiction – Excess and Lack Thereof

After the May 11, 1992 elections, Arroyo was declared as the duly elected Congressman

of the lone district of Makati. Arroyo won by 13,559 otes oer his o!!onent. "iso!!onent #y$uco !rotested the declaration before the "%&'. #y$uco alleged that Arroyo

won due to massie fraud hence he moed for reision and recounting. "%&' gae way but during the !rocess some "%&' em!loyees and !ersonnel conducted some

irregularities to ensure #y$uco(s win. After some !a!er battles between the two, #y$uco,reali)ing that mere reision and recounting would not suffice to oerthrow the more than

12,*** otes lead of Arroyo oer him, reised his com!laint by including and introducing

in his memorandum cum addendum that his com!laint is actually based on a broader andmore e+uitable nontraditional determination of the e-istence of the !recinctleel

documentbased anomalies and that the reision he initially sought is $ust incidental to

such determination. 'he 3 $ustices members of the "%&' ruled that such amendment isalready beyond the tribunal(s $urisdiction and the re!resentatie members ruled

otherwise. Conse+uently, by a ote of 3, the "%&' did not dismiss the !rotest filed by

#y$uco and the "%&' later declared #y$uco as the winner.

ISSUE: /hether or not "%&' acted with grae abuse of discretion amounting to lack ore-cess of $urisdiction.

HELD: "oweer guised or $ustified by #y$uco, this innoatie theory he introduced for

the first time in his memorandum cum addendum indeed broadened the sco!e of the

election !rotest beyond what he originally soughtthe mere reision of ballots. 0rom hisinitial !rayer for reision which lays !rimary, if not e-clusie em!hasis on the !hysical

recount and a!!reciation of ballots alone, !riate res!ondent(s belated attem!t to in$ect

this theory at the memorandum stage calls for !resentation of eidence consisting of

thousands of documents aside from, or other than, the ballots themseles. y haingdone so, #y$uco in fact intended to com!letely abandon the !rocess and results of the

reision and thereafter sought to rely on his brainchild !rocess he fondly coined as4!recinctleel documentbased eidence. 'his is clearly substantial amendment of the

election !rotest e-!ressly !roscribed by %ule 26 of the "%&' internal rules.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC

G.R. No. 118597 July 14, 1995 JOKER P. ARROYO, petitioner,

vs.


2/40

2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIES E!ECTORA! TRI"UNA! #HRET$ %&'AUGUSTO !. SYJUCO, JR., respondents.

FRANCISCO, J.: Congressional candidate private respondent Augusto . !"#uco, $r., %led anelection protest before public respondent &ouse of Representatives Electoral

'ribunal (&RE') %ve da"s after the Ma*ati board of canvassers proclai+ed

petitioner $o*er P. Arro"o the dul" elected congress+an for the lone district of Ma*ati in the Ma" 11, 12 s"nchroni-ed national and local elections.Essentiall" pre+ised on alleged irregularitiesano+alies in the tabulation andentries of votes and +assive fraud, private respondent !"#uco sought therevision and recounting of ballots cast in 1,22 out of the total 1,/10precincts of Ma*ati fro+ hich result he ai+ed to be declared as the dul"elected congress+an of Ma*ati. Petitioner %led a counterprotest 3uestioningthe residence 3uali%cation of private respondent !"#uco, but the sa+e asdis+issed b" public respondent &RE'.As pra"ed for b" private respondent, revision of the ballots as underta*en,but not ithout serious irregularities having been unearthed in the coursethereof. 'as*ed b" public respondent &RE' to investigate on the +atter, no

retired !upre+e Court $ustice E+ilio 4anca"co con%r+ed the irregularitiesand ano+alies engineered b" so+e &RE' o5cials and personnel. 1 'he%ndings contained in $ustice 4anca"co6s Report and Reco++endation ereaptl" su++ari-ed in the 78issenting 9pinion: of $ustice Bidin in this ise;


3/40

>

results of the counting. Congress+an $o*er Arro"o is the classic victi+ of thisunlaful e=ercise.: )

At or about the ti+e the revision as co+pleted and ith three precincts leftunaccounted for, private respondent !"#uco +oved for the ithdraal ofthese re+aining unrevised protested precincts on the ground that he haspresu+abl" overta*en petitioner Arro"o6s lead of 1>, votes.

ith neither private respondent !"#uco nor petitioner Arro"o availing of theirright to +ove for a technical e=a+ination after co+pletion of revision, asprovided for under Rules 020 of the &RE' Rules, reception of theirrespective evidence folloed.Private respondent6s evidence ere all docu+entar" and volu+inous at thatconsisting of over 2??,??? pages. 'hese e=hibits, hoever, and hich privaterespondent as ell as public respondent &RE' 4 does not seriousl" dispute arein general, 7+ere photocopies and not certi%ed or authenticated b"co+parison ith the original docu+ents or identi%cation b" an" itness . . . .:5 and ere for+all" o@ered b" +erel" as*ing that the" be +ar*ed. 9n theother hand, petitioner6s evidence consisted of certi%ed true copies of theRevision Reports and election returns. * 8espite the vigorous ob#ection raised

b" petitioner ith respect to the ad+ission of and the probative value ofprivate respondent6s e=hibits, public respondent &RE' ad+itted the evidencefor hatever the" +a" be orth. 7

'hereafter, pursuant to Rule of the &RE' Rules, 8 petitioner and privaterespondent %led their respective +e+oranda si+ultaneousl".


4/40

0

as earl" (as) the ti+e of the registration of voters. !uch resourcefulness hadundoubtedl" resulted in the accu+ulation of hat has no beenappropriatel" coined b" protestant as 7Precinctevel, 8ocu+entBasedEvidences.:=== === ===2.>.. &oever, signi%cant and +aterial as the" are, the results gathered

fro+ the ordinar" and traditional BA9' revision process, do not constitutethe 9NF! of protestant(Gs) case. Hro+ protestant6s point of vie, 7theballot(s) the+selves bear onl" incidental signi%cance in our chosen approach,because, in our orld of cause and e@ect, the ballots are +ere e@ects of thedocu+entbased ano+alies. . . . .: IA88EN8FM, 8>J Presentation, Part 2,Revision of BallotsK. Hor trul", the C9NCEN'RA'.. And in so concentrating, the 'ribunal should reali-e that the protestant,even as early as the fling o the protest soon ater protestee’s proclamation,was ully aware that in disputing the sham victory o protestee, theanticipated/expected results o the regular, traditional and normal process oREVII!" o #allots, would, #y itsel, #e unavailing, and insu$cient to

overturn protestee’s supposed victory .2.>./. &ence, hen in the A88EN8FM, there is a continuing reference to the4RAN8 PA''ERN 9H MA!!

protestant was well%aware rom the moment o commencement o the protest that to overcome a su#stantial margin o well over &',((( votes, therevision o the #allots alone would not su$ce.=== === ===0.2. Besides, as discussed in detail above, protestant6s protest case rests N9'on the results of the revision, hich is categori-ed as 7incidental:J but +ainl"on the broader and +ore e3uitable N9N'RA8


5/40

e=istence of the PREC


6/40

of ballots alone ould not su5ce.: &oever, to *eep his protest alive, afterthe adverse result of the revision, protestant has to devise the broader and(allegedl") +ore e3uitable nontraditional deter+ination of the e=istence ofprecinctlevel docu+entbased ano+alies6 even if the sa+e is not authori-edb" la nor even alleged in his protest. 11

Petitioner +oved to dis+iss the protest but to no avail. No hearings ere

conducted thereafter. 'hen on $anuar" 2, 1, public respondent &RE', b" the sa+e vote of si=Congress+en+e+bers against three $ustices+e+bers, rendered its noassailed 8ecision annulling petitioner Arro"o6s procla+ation and declaringprivate respondent !"#uco as the dul" elected congress+an. 'he dispositiveportion of the 8ecision reads;&EREH9RE, #udg+ent is hereb" rendered;1. ANNF


7/40

/

Costs are charged against Protestee Arro"o, pursuant to Rule > of the 'ribunal.As soon as this 8ecision beco+es %nal, notice and copies thereof shall besent to the President of the Philippines, the &ouse of Representatives throughthe !pea*er, and the Co++ission on Audit, through its Chair+an, pursuant toRule /> of the Revised Rules of the &ouse of Representatives Electoral

'ribunal.!9 9R8ERE8. 1(

ithout %ling a +otion for reconsideration of public respondent &RE'6sdecision, petitioner Arro"o %led the instant petition setting forth the folloingissues;A. hether or not public respondent acted ith grave abuse of discretion andithout #urisdiction hen it refused to dis+iss &RE' Case No. 21? after!"#uco had belatedl" changed the theor" of his case and introduced neissues and, thereafter, hen it proceeded ith the protest.B. hether or not the &RE'6s 8ecision in Case No. 2?1 dated 2 $anuar"1 as rendered in violation of petitioner6s right to due process.C. hether or not public respondent acted capriciousl", arbitraril", and ith

grave abuse of discretion hen it;(1) Re#ected long standing legal doctrines and precedents on elections andannul+entJ(2) 8isregard the people6s right to su@rageJ(>)


8/40

L

election protest e=pressl" proscribed b" Rule 2L of the &RE' internal ruleshich reads;After the e=piration of the period for %ling of the protest, counterprotest orpetition for uo warranto, substantial a+end+ents hich broaden the scopeof the action or introduce an additional cause of action shall not bealloed. . . . .

'he +a#orit" +e+bers of the 'ribunal in fact had alread" sensed thei+propriet" of private respondent6s belated shift of theor" hen it issued its7shocause: order re3uiring the latter to e=plain h" his election protestshould not be dis+issed. But the +a#orit" violated ith open e"es its onrules hen the" resolved not to dis+iss the protest D a clear indication ofgrave abuse of discretion. 'he least that public respondent &RE' could havedone thereafter as to conduct further hearing so that petitioner Arro"o +a"have e=a+ined, ob#ected to and adduced evidence controverting privaterespondent !"#uco6s 7precinctlevel docu+entbased evidence: despite theti+e ithin hich the parties are alloed to present their evidence hasalread" lapsed. 14 But nothing in the records indicates that one asconducted. Petitioner6s right to due process as clearl" violated at this

particular stage of the proceedings.4ranting that private respondent6s change in theor" (being a substantiala+end+ent) is +erel" disalloed and not a valid ground for the outrightdis+issal of his election protest, nonetheless it has been consistentl" heldthat substantial a+end+ents to the protest +a"be alloed onl" ithin thesa+e period for the %ling of the election protest 15 hich, under Rule 1 of the&RE' Rules, is ten (1?) da"s after the procla+ation of the inner. Privaterespondent6s 7precinctlevel docu+entbased ano+aliesevidence: theor"having been introduced onl" at the ho+estretch of the proceedings, he isbound b" the issue hich he essentiall" raised in his election protest and thatis, a revision of the ballots ill con%r+ his victor" and theirregularitiesano+alies and +assive fraud foisted upon hi+ during the 12

s"nchroni-ed elections. Hor the rule in an election protest is that theprotestant or counterprotestant must stand or all upon the issues he hadraised in his original or amended pleading fled prior to the lapse o thestatutory period or the fling o protest or counter

protest. 1* (e+phasis supplied) Private respondent is therefore bound b" the%nal results of the revision con%r+ing petitioner6s victor" over hi+ b" apluralit" of 1>,?2 votes. 17 Petitioner6s inevitable victor" in the revision aseven conceded to b" private respondent hi+self hen he stated in his+e+orandu+ cu+ addendu+ that;. . . in disputing the sha+ victor" of protestee, the anticipatede=pectedresults of the regular, traditional and nor+al process of RE

'his state+ent is clearl" an ad+ission against private respondent6s oninterest e3uall" binding and conclusive upon hi+, there being no shoing


9/40

that he +ade it through palpable +ista*e (!ection 0, Rule 12, Rules ofCourt).

'hus, the %nal results of the revision and the ad+ission of his eventual losstherein ere su5cient reasons to con%r+ at a +uch earlier ti+e petitionerArro"o6s victor" over private respondent !"#uco. 'hese are the o@shoots ofthe theor" and cause of action private respondent !"#uco originall" ban*ed

on (revision). Private respondent cannot escape its adverse e@ects b" lateron contriving unprecedented and holl" untested processes or theories suchas the 7precinctlevel docu+entbased ano+aliesevidence:, the applicableand ellsettled principle being 7a part" is bound b" the theor" he adoptsand b" the cause of action he stands on and cannot be per+itted after havinglost thereon to repudiate his theor" and cause of action and adopt anotherand see* to relitigate the +atter ane either in the sa+e foru+ or onappeal:. 18 'his is in essence putting private respondent in estoppel to3uestion the revision.


10/40

1?

serving allegation of private respondent !"#uco supported b" +erephotocopied election docu+ents that around 12,?/ signatures of votersscattered in /// precincts ere forged or falsi%ed, the +a#orit" congress+en+e+bers of the 'ribunal b" the+selves ithout the participation of an" of thethree (>) re+aining $ustices+e+bers, declared that 1?,0L0 of the contestedsignature are fa*e. () 'his course of action grossl" violates not onl" Rule L of

the 'ribunal6s on rules hich re3uires that all 3uestions shall be sub+ittedto the 'ribunal as a bod", but also Rule thereof hich further re3uires thepresence of at least one (1) $ustice+e+ber to constitute a valid 3uoru+.


11/40

11

tribunal nulli%ed the 1?S +argin in several contested precincts ith allegedsubstitute voting hich the dissenting opinion correctl" observed as 7a far cr"fro+ the e=isting ?S rule:. (9 hat is even orse is that the nulli%cation ofthese votes as based on inad+issible docu+ents so+e of the+ not o@eredin evidence b" private respondent. 'he Court cannot countenance suchblatant nulli%cation of votes as it fails to co+pl" ith the established

standard on annul+ent. Elections should never be held void unless the" areclearl" illegalJ it is the dut" of the court to sustain an election authori-ed b"la if it has been so conducted as to give a free and fair e=pression of thepopular ill, and the actual result thereof is clearl" ascertained. )+

Additionall", public respondent &RE' disregarded election results on severalprecincts on the basis of o+issions co++itted either through +ere oversightor plain negligence on the part of election o5cials or e+plo"ees. 'he bul* ofthese o+issions consisted of lac* or absence of the signature of the chair+anof the Board of Election


12/40

12

ith if, as in this case, petitioner6s funda+ental right to due process asviolated. )4

All told, the procedural as hich +arred the proceedings in the publicrespondent &RE' fro+ the ti+e private respondent6s 7precinctleveldocu+ent based ano+aliesevidence: theor" as e+braced b" the +a#orit"+e+bers up to the rendition of #udg+ent su5ce in the+selves to render the

public respondent &RE'6s +a#orit" decision declaring private respondent!"#uco as the dul" elected congress+an of the then lone district of Ma*ati aco+plete nullit". 'he persistent and deliberate violation of the 'ribunal6s ongoverning rules and of even the +ost basic rules of evidence cannot be

#usti%ed b" si+pl" invo*ing that procedural rules should be liberall"construed. Hor even if Rule 2 of the 'ribunal6s internal rules states that;1, 10)J and 7Claver vs. Bulut: (&RE' Case No. 2?1, Nov. 2>, 1>). More speci%call", in the 7Cuneta: case, the &RE' struc*don certain foreign docu+ents presented b" petitioner Cuneta as beinginad+issible under the best evidence rule (!ection 0, Rule 1>?, Rules ofCourt) and for failure to +eet the re3uire+ents for the ad+issibilit" inevidence of foreign docu+ents under !ections 20 and 2, Rule 1>2 of theRules of Court as applied in the 7&ernande-: case and in 78e eon vs.!anche-: (&RE' Case No. 2?1>).


13/40

1>

But h" the change of heart and open de%ance in this case hen the ver"sa+e ob#ections raised b" public respondent &RE' in these cases s3uarel"appl" to the entiret" of private respondent6s +assive docu+entar" evidenceQLQ (p. 1?). 'he Court notes that even a $ustice ho is not a +e+ber of the &RE' hasbeen +ade the ob#ect of calu+n" in e=tre+el" vulgar language b" i+putinglin*ages beteen her and petitioner, although a thinl" veiled atte+pt as+ade b" private respondent to absolve hi+self b" ascribing such i+putationto 7un*ind ru+ors:.


14/40

10

, >1J Rhee+ of the Philippines v. Herrer,supra at p. 00). Hinding private respondent6s state+ents conte+ptous anduncalled for he is hereb" declared guilt" of indirect conte+pt.&EREH9RE, in vie of the foregoing, the petition is hereb" 4RAN'E8, andpublic respondent &RE'6s +a#orit" decision dated $anuar" 2, 1 is !E'

A!


15/40

1

< ish to li+it +" opinion to the +ore enduring issue involving the #urisdictionof this Court to revie decisions of our electoral tribunals. et +e fast forardthe histor" of the Court6s certiorari #urisdiction vis%a%vis the poer of Electoral

'ribunals to act as 7sole #udge: of contests involving their +e+bers. Fnderthe Philippine Bill of 1?2, legislative poer as vested in the PhilippineAsse+bl" and the Asse+bl" as a bod" as the #udge of the election, returns,

and 3uali%cations of its +e+bers. 1 'hen ca+e the Act of Congress of August2, 11, co++onl" *non as the $ones a.


16/40

1

the protest and dis+issed it. Morrero %led ith this Court an original action ofprohibition against Bocar and the Auditor 4eneral.


17/40

1/

Representatives, as the case +a" be, ho shall be chosen on the basis ofproportional representation fro+ the political parties and the parties ororgani-ations registered under the part"list s"ste+ represented therein. 'hesenior $ustice in the Electoral 'ribunal shall be its Chair+an.?, 1LL. 'hus, private respondent no see*s tohave the Court annul and set aside these to resolutions and to issue a

te+porar" restraining order andor rit of preli+inar" in#unction on thepre+ise that the grounds therefor are too evident to be doubted.

'he relief pra"ed for in private respondent6s countercross petitioner is notforthco+ing.

'he +atter of hether or not to issue a restraining order or a rit ofpreli+inar" in#unction during the pendenc" of a protest lies ithin the sounddiscretion of the &RE' as sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election,returns, and 3uali%cations of the Me+bers of the &ouse of Representatives.Necessaril", the deter+ination of hether or not there are indubitablegrounds to support the pra"er for the afore+entioned ancillar" re+edies alsolies ithin the &RE'6s sound #udg+ent. 'hus, in 4.R. No. L???/, here theCourt declined to ta*e cogni-ance of the private respondent6s electoral

protest, this Court said; 'he alleged invalidit" of the procla+ation (hich had been previousl" orderedb" the C9MEEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection thereith,and despite the pendenc" of the protests of the rival candidates, is a +atterthat is also addressed, considering the pre+ises, to the sound #udg+ent ofthe Electoral 'ribunal.Moreover, private respondent6s atte+pt to have the Court set aside the&RE'6s resolution to defer action on his pra"er for provisional relief isundeniabl" pre+ature, considering that the &RE' had not "et ta*en an" %nalaction ith regard to his pra"er. &ence, there is actuall" nothing to revie orannul and set aside. But then again, so long as the Constitution grants the&RE' the poer to be the sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election,returns and 3uali%cations of Me+bers of the &ouse of Representatives, an"%nal action ta*en b" the &RE' on a +atter ithin its #urisdiction shall, as arule, not be revieed b" this Court. As stated earlier, the poer granted to


18/40

1L

the Electoral 'ribunal is full, clear and co+plete and 7e=cludes the e=ercise of an" authorit" on the part of this Court that ould in an" ise restrict orcurtail it or even a@ect the sa+e.: (achica v. ap, supra, at 10>.) As earl" as1>L in Morrero v. Bocar ( Phil. 02, 0>1 I1>LK), the Court declared that7(t)he #udg+ent rendered b" the (Electoral) Co++ission in the e=ercise ofsuch an ac*noledged poer is be"ond #udicial interference, except , in an"

event, upon a clear shoing of such arbitrar" and i+provident use of thepoer as ill constitute a denial of due process of la.: Fnder the 1L/Constitution, the scope of the Court6s authorit" is +ade e=plicit. 'he poergranted to the Court includes the dut" 7to deter+ine hether or not therehas been a grave abuse of discretion a+ounting to lac* or e=cess of

#urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instru+entalit" of the 4overn+ent:(Art.


19/40

1

have acted ithin the bounds of the Constitution. (!ee Article Phil. 1> I1>K).


20/40

2?

fact that the certiorari #urisdiction of this Court has not been altered in our1>, 1/> and 1L/ Constitutions.Prescinding fro+ these pre+ises, < cannot perceive ho this Court6s certiorari

#urisdiction to revie decisions and orders of the Electoral 'ribunals ofCongress can be doubted under the 1L/ Constitutions.


21/40


22/40

22

all the then !olicitor4eneral ould set up the defense that said casesinvolved political 3uestions over hich the !upre+e Court had no #urisdiction.&e stated that such encroach+ent upon the rights of people continued during+artial la.Citing the case of $avellana vs. the !ecretar" of $ustice, Mr. Concepcionrecalled that hen the 1/1 Constitutional Convention sub+itted the 1/>

Constitution to the President, ho, in turn, as to call plebiscite for therati%cation of said Constitution, a petition as %led before the !upre+e Court3uestioning the President6s authorit" to appropriate funds either for aplebiscite or a referendu+, the poer of appropriation being a legislativeprerogative. But hile the !upre+e Court as still hearing the case, hedisclosed that the Minister of $ustice brought hi+ a cop" of the procla+ationdeclaring the adoption of the Constitution through a referendu+. &e notedthat even the Me+bers of the !upre+e Court ere surprised to learn that areferendu+ as held, and felt that a referendu+ could not #ust substitute fora plebiscite. And hen other cases ere %led to declare the procla+ation ofthe President null and void, said cases ere dis+issed on the ground that theissue as a political 3uestion.

&e also cited the case of representation in the !enate Electoral 'ribunalherein the 9pposition as entitled to three seats but got onl" one becausethere as no other no+ination aside fro+ !enator 'aVada so the +a#orit"part" %lled up the re+aining to seats. 'he !upre+e Court upheld the+a#orit" on the ground that it as a political issue.


23/40

2>

of the dut" of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights hichare legall" de+andable or enforceable. &e stressed that under thisestablished rule, the courts cannot e=ercise their poers on h"pothetical3uestions b" appl"ing general principles ithout considering the bac*groundof the situation.Mr. Concepcion pointed out that in a presidential s"ste+, the !upre+e Court

has a +ore i+portant function because of the separation of poers into threebranches; the legislative, the e=ecutive and the #udiciar". &e stressed thateach branch is supre+e ithin its on sphere being independent fro+ oneanother and it is this supre+ac" hich enables the courts to deter+inehether a la is constitutional or unconstitutional.B" virtue thereof, Mr. Concepcion +aintained that the functions of courts of

#ustice is to deter+ine the li+it and pronounce #udg+ent on hether or notcertain o5cers of the govern+ent have acted ithin their territor". &e statedthat if the $udiciar" feels that the depart+ent or branch concerned has actedithout #urisdiction or in e=cess of its #urisdiction a+ounting to an arbitrar"abuse of poer, the courts are e+poered and dut"bound to render

#udg+ent on these +atters. &e stated that these constitute the bac*ground

of paragraph 2 of !ection 1 hich +eans that the court cannot later on ashits hands b" sa"ing that it is a political 3uestions.=== === ===


24/40

20

senior $ustice in the Electoral 'ribunal shall be its Chair+an. (E+phasissupplied)< a+ not unaare of section 1, Article


25/40

2

either of the !enate or of the &ouse, is exclusive and unlimited and,thereore, there will #e no appeal to the upreme ourt?MR. ATCFNA.


26/40

2

force and persuasion that the decision of the electoral tribunal should be %naland conclusive, for it is b" constitutional directive, +ade the sole #udge ofcontests relating to such +atters. 'he present controvers", hoever, involvesno less than a deter+ination of hether the 3uali%cations for +e+bership inthe &ouse of Representatives, as prescri#ed #y the onstitution, have been+et.


27/40

2/

funda+ental la. i*e +" colleague, Mr. $ustice 'eodoro Padilla, < also believethat the evident Constitutional intend+ent is to +a*e the tribunals the %nalarbiters of all contests relating to the election, returns and ualifcation of therespective +e+bers of Congress.< certainl" cannot 3uestion +uch of hat +" other estee+ed colleague, Mr.

$ustice Ricardo $. Hrancisco, has said in his ponencia, nor can < dispute the

description in !ection 1, Article


28/40

2L

, a change as +ade on the bod" that ill #udge the election of+e+bers of Congress. 9ur Constitution of 1> transferred 7in its totalit" allthe poers previousl" e=ercised b" the egislature in +atters pertaining tocontested elections of its +e+bers, to an independent and impartialtri#unal.: 5 bench+ar* case of 6ngara vs. Electoral ommission,et al., * this Court observed; 7ith this end in vie, a co+posite bod" in

hich both the +a#orit" and +inorit" parties are e3uall" represented to o@set partisan inuence in its deliberations as created, and further endoedith #udicial te+per b" including in its +e+bership three #ustices of the!upre+e Court.: 7 'hus, section 11 of Article < of our 1> Constitutionprovides;!ec. 11. 'he !enate and the &ouse of Representatives shall each have anElectoral 'ribunal hich shall be the sole 7udge of all contests relating to theelection, returns, and 3uali%cations of their respective Me+bers. EachElectoral 'ribunal shall be co+posed of nine +e+bers, three of ho+ shallbe $ustices of the !upre+e Court to be designated b" the Chief $ustice, andthe re+aining si= shall be Me+bers of the !enate or of the &ouse ofRepresentatives, as the case +a" be, ho shall be chosen b" each &ouse,

three upon no+ination of the part" having the largest nu+ber of votes andthree of the part" having the second largest nu+ber of votes therein. 'hesenior $ustice in each Electoral 'ribunal shall be its Chair+an.L b" the case of 8orrero vs. 4ocar , et al., 9 herethis Court speci%ed the ground upon hich it +a" revie decisions of theElectoral Co++ission. rddistrict of !a+ar.!ection 0 of Article < of the Constitution provides that 7. . . 'he ElectoralCo++ission shall be the sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election,


29/40

2

returns, and 3uali%cations of the Me+bers of the National Asse+bl".: 'helanguage of this provision is clear. a. ed., L/. (E+phasissupplied)Fsing this standard of arbitrariness, the Court noted that Morrero6s protestas dul" heard b" the Electoral Co++ission and then dis+issed his petitionfor prohibition.9ur constitutional od"sse" too* a ne turn in 1/>, hen e adopted the1/> Constitution hich installed a +odi%ed for+ of parlia+entar"govern+ent and a unica+eral legislature, the 4atasang 9am#ansa.


30/40

>?

pra"er after %nding that the grounds therefor did not appear to beindubitable. Private respondent +oved for reconsideration, but this asdenied b" the &RE' on Ma" >?, 1LL. 'hus, private respondent no see*s tohave the Court annul and set aside these to resolutions and to issue ate+porar" restraining order andor rit of preli+inar" in#unction on thepre+ise that the grounds therefor are too evident to be doubted.

'he relief pra"ed for in private respondent6s countercross petitioner is notforthco+ing.

'he +atter of hether or not to issue a restraining order or a rit ofpreli+inar" in#unction during the pendenc" of a protest lies ithin the sounddiscretion of the &RE' as sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election,returns, and 3uali%cations of the Me+bers of the &ouse of Representatives.Necessaril", the deter+ination of hether or not there are indubitablegrounds to support the pra"er for the afore+entioned ancillar" re+edies alsolies ithin the &RE'6s sound #udg+ent. 'hus, in 4.R. No. L???/, here theCourt declined to ta*e cogni-ance of the private respondent6s electoralprotest, this Court said;

'he alleged invalidit" of the procla+ation (hich had been previousl" ordered

b" the C9MEEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection thereith,and despite the pendenc" of the protests of the rival candidates, is a +atterthat is also addressed, considering the pre+ises, to the sound #udg+ent ofthe Electoral 'ribunal.Moreover, private respondent6s atte+pt to have the Court set aside the&RE'6s resolution to defer action on his pra"er for provisional relief isundeniabl" pre+ature, considering that the &RE' had not "et ta*en an" %nalaction ith regard to his pra"er. &ence, there is actuall" nothing to revie orannul and set aside. But then again, so long as the Constitution grants the&RE' the poer to be the sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election,returns and 3uali%cations of Me+bers of the &ouse of Representatives, an"%nal action ta*en b" the &RE' on a +atter ithin its #urisdiction shall, as arule, not be revieed b" this Court. As stated earlier, the poer granted tothe Electoral 'ribunal is full, clear and co+plete and 7e=cludes the e=ercise of an" authorit" on the part of this Court that ould in an" ise restrict orcurtail it or even a@ect the sa+e.: (achica v. ap, supra, at 10>.) As earl" as1>L in Morrero v. Bocar ( Phil. 02, 0>1 I1>LK), the Court declared that7(t)he #udg+ent rendered b" the (Electoral) Co++ission in the e=ercise ofsuch an ac*noledged poer is be"ond #udicial interference, except , in an"event, upon a clear shoing of such arbitrar" and i+provident use of thepoer as ill constitute a denial of due process of la.: Fnder the 1L/Constitution, the scope of the Court6s authorit" is +ade e=plicit. 'he poergranted to the Court includes the dut" 7to deter+ine hether or not therehas been a grave abuse of discretion a+ounting to lac* or e=cess of

#urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instru+entalit" of the 4overn+ent:(Art.


31/40

>1

there is no occasion for the e=ercise of the Court6s corrective poer, since nograve abuse of discretion that ould a+ount to lac* of #urisdiction and ouldarrant the issuance of the rits pra"ed for has been clearl" shon.(E+phasis supplied)

branches and agencies of the govern+ent to deter+ine hether or not the"have acted ithin the bounds of the Constitution. (!ee Article


32/40

>2

Constitution is intended to be as co+plete and uni+paired as if it hadre+ained originall" in the legislature. (Angara v. Electoral Co++ission, >Phil. 1> I1>K).


33/40

>>

the !enate and of the &ouse to act as the 7sole 7udge: of all contests relatingto the election, returns, and 3uali%cations of their respective +e+bers. 18

'he debates in the Constitutional Co++ission li*eise de+onstrate that itas far fro+ the +inds of the co++issioners to change the rulings of thisCourt on its certiorari #urisdiction over the Electoral 'ribunals. 'he" sho theirun+ista*able intent to retain our rulings in 6ngara 19 and Vera vs. 6velino, (+

thus;MR. MAAMB9N4. 'han* "ou.M" 3uestions ill be ver" basic so e can go as fast as e can.


34/40

>0

and of the people adopting it. )he intention to which orce is to #e given isthat which is em#odied and expressed in the constitutional provisionsthemselves.:Uuite clearl" then, the poer of this Court to revie decisions of Electoral

'ribunals is based on its certiorari #urisdiction hich is no even be"onddi+inution b" Congress. () Again ith due respect, < cannot see ho the ne

e=panded #urisdiction of this Court in the 1L/ Constitution can be used tota*e aa" the certiorari #urisdiction of the Court over of the Electoral

'ribunals. A fair reading of the proceedings of the Constitutional Co++issionill reveal that the pri+ar" purpose of the co++issioners in e=panding theconcept of #udicial poer of this Court b" including the dut" 7to deter+inehether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion a+ounting to lac*or e=cess of #urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instru+entalit" of thegovern+ent: is to eli+inate the defense of political 3uestions hich in thepast deprived this Court of the #urisdiction to stri*e don abuses of poer b"govern+ent. < refer to the su++ar" of the sponsorship speech of the neprovision +ade b" for+er Chief $ustice Roberto Concepcion, thus; (4

!P9N!9R!&


35/40

>

referendu+ as held, and felt that a referendu+ could not #ust substitute fora plebiscite. And hen other cases ere %led to declare the procla+ation ofthe President null and void, said cases ere dis+issed on the ground that theissue as a political 3uestion.&e also cited the case of representation in the !enate Electoral 'ribunalherein the 9pposition as entitled to three seats but got onl" one because

there as no other no+ination aside fro+ !enator 'aVada so the +a#orit"part" %lled up the re+aining to seats. 'he !upre+e Court upheld the+a#orit" on the ground that it as a political issue.


36/40


37/40

>/

the Electoral 'ribunals the sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election,returns, and 3uali%cations of the +e+bers of the to (2) houses of Congress.!ection 1, Article


38/40

>L

+e+bers of the !enate and &ouse are concerned, in the sa+e a" that theConstitution +a*es the !upre+e Court, sitting en #anc, as the PresidentialElectoral 'ribunal (PE'), the sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election,returns and 3uali%cations of the President and icePresident (!ection 0,Article


39/40

>

< a+ not unaare of the possibilit" that the si= () other +e+bers of the&RE' D all +e+bers of the &ouse of Representatives D ho voted to oustpetitioner Arro"o fro+ his congressional seat, +a" have done so based onpurel" partisan considerations, even to the e=tent of disregarding the true+andate of the electorate. 'he orld of politics is indeed not incapable ofsuch sinister plots. But this Court is not the repositor" of all re+edies and

reliefs. Petitioner should %nd his vindication the ne=t ti+e he faces thesovereign electorate (as he did on L Ma" 1).


40/40

0?

than a constitutional %at, is ell ithin their e=clusive do+ain. < +ust assu+ethat it is onl" hen the assailed action lies be"ond their constitutionall"vested authorit" (or, to use the language of the constitution, a+ounts to lac*or e=cess of #urisdiction) that the Court ould not be poerless to step in andgrant corresponding relief.Accordingl", < +ust in this case respect the decision, dated 2 $anuar" 1,

of the &ouse of Representatives Electoral 'ribunal but < concur ith +"colleagues ho %nd private respondent guilt" of conte+pt and i+posingthusl" on hi+ a %ne.

Documents

arroyo vs. hret.docx