Title
Supreme Court
Drilon vs. De Venecia, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 180055
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2009
LP sought proportional CA representation; petition moot after LP member's designation. Senator Madrigal's challenge dismissed for lack of standing and premature recourse.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 180055)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Election and Composition of the Commission on Appointments (CA) Contingents
    • In August 2007, both the Senate and the House of Representatives elected their respective contingents to the CA.
      • The Senate contingent comprised senators belonging to various political parties, including PDP-Laban, KAMPI, Lakas-CMD, UNO, PMP, NPC, PRP, and others.
      • The House contingent was similarly composed, with representatives from parties such as Lakas-CMD, KAMPI, NPC, NP, and the Party-List (CIBAC).
    • The constitutional requirement mandates proportional representation in the CA with respect to the political parties represented by their numbers in the House and Senate.
  • The First Petition (G.R. No. 180055)
    • Petitioners, led by former Senator Franklin M. Drilon on behalf of the Liberal Party, asserted that:
      • The Liberal Party, having at least twenty members in the 14th Congress, was entitled to one CA seat.
      • The House, in its process of constitution of the CA, had violated Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution by not allotting a seat to the Liberal Party.
    • Chronology of developments:
      • In the second week of August 2007, petitioners approached then Speaker Jose de Venecia to secure a CA seat for the Liberal Party. The Speaker promised to study the matter.
      • On September 3, 2007, Representative Taaada requested from the House leadership a seat in the CA for the Liberal Party.
      • Subsequent written communications, including Representative Taaada’s letter of September 10, 2007, emphasized the constitutional mandate for proportional representation.
      • By October 15, 2007, no legal opinion had been issued by the Legal Affairs Bureau, prompting further inquiries from petitioners.
    • Relief sought:
      • The petition prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to halt the CA proceedings.
      • It also sought a declaration that the current composition of the CA was null and void, and an order to reorganize the CA in compliance with the proportional representation requirement.
    • Later development:
      • On August 15, 2008, petitioners filed a Motion to Withdraw the petition, arguing that with the designation of Representative Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. (a Liberal Party member) to the House contingent, the issue had become moot.
  • The Second Petition (G.R. No. 183055)
    • Filed by Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal of PDP-Laban, the petition raised concerns regarding both the Senate and House compositions in the CA.
    • Key points advanced by Senator Madrigal:
      • The Senate contingent allegedly violated proportional representation, noting discrepancies such as:
        • PMP’s representation versus its actual Senate numbers.
        • KAMPI and PRP having representation in the CA despite their limited membership.
        • The contention over independent senators and party affiliations.
      • The House contingent was similarly challenged; issues included:
        • Lakas-CMD allegedly having more members than constitutionally allowed.
        • KAMPI’s overrepresentation.
        • The Liberal Party’s lack of representation despite its sizable membership.
        • The inclusion of a Party-List representative (CIBAC) who was argued not to be entitled to a CA seat given the numbers.
    • Senator Madrigal’s remedial requests:
      • She called for the reorganization and reconstitution of the CA to ensure a composition that strictly adhered to the proportional representation mandated by Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution.
      • She also demanded that all CA proceedings be held in abeyance until the constitutional issues were resolved.
    • Subsequent correspondence:
      • Senator Madrigal repeatedly communicated with Senator Villar, the Senate President and ex officio CA Chairman, and with Speaker Prospero Nograles of the House, reiterating her concerns about the CA’s composition.
      • On several occasions (letters dated April, May, and June 2008), she underscored that without resolution on these issues, her participation in CA proceedings would cease and further constitutional challenges would be pursued.
    • Consolidation with the first petition:
      • On July 1, 2008, the Court consolidated G.R. No. 180055 and G.R. No. 183055, thereby addressing the issues in a single adjudicatory proceeding.
  • Contentions by Respondents
    • Respondents (including Senate President Manuel Villar, Speaker Jose de Venecia, Representative Arthur Defensor, Sr., and CA Secretary Ma. Gemma Aspiras) argued that:
      • The power to elect members to the CA lies constitutionally with each House of Congress.
      • The petitioners’ remedies are inherently political in nature and must first be exhausted through internal congressional processes.
      • There exists a presumption of regularity in the conduct of the official functions of the CA.
      • The extraordinary remedies such as a writ of mandamus or prohibition should not be granted in the absence of a demonstration of grave abuse of discretion or direct injury.
    • Additional arguments were made regarding procedural prerequisites:
      • Petitioners did not observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction by first exhausting available remedies within the respective Houses.
      • Questions about party affiliation and numerical strength were seen as factual determinations best handled through legislative, not judicial, processes.

Issues:

  • Issues Raised in the First Petition (G.R. No. 180055)
    • Whether the Liberal Party, with its claim of having at least twenty members in Congress, is constitutionally entitled to one seat in the House contingent of the CA.
    • Whether the failure of the House leadership to allot the requested seat amounts to grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in violation of the proportional representation requirement under Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution.
    • Whether the issuance of extraordinary writs (TRO, preliminary injunction, writs of prohibition and mandamus) is justified to immediately alter or restrain the current composition and proceedings of the CA.
  • Issues Raised in the Second Petition (G.R. No. 183055)
    • Whether the composition of both the Senate and House contingents to the CA violates the constitutional requirement of proportional party representation.
    • Whether the particular allocations per political party (such as representations afforded to PMP, KAMPI, PRP, and the Party-List) are in excess of or deficient relative to what is constitutionally mandated.
    • Whether petitioners have standing to challenge the CA’s composition and whether their direct recourse to the Court is proper without first exhausting the remedies within their respective legislative bodies (doctrine of primary jurisdiction).

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms