Case Digest (G.R. No. 106971)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 106971)
Facts:
Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., and Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats (LAKAS-NUCD) v. Neptali A. Gonzales, Alberto Romulo and Wigberto E. Tanada, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992, Supreme Court En Banc, Campos, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. (Minority Floor Leader) and LAKAS-NUCD challenged the seating of Senators Alberto Romulo and Wigberto E. Tanada as members of the Commission on Appointments; Neptali A. Gonzales, Senate President, was sued in his capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission. The Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) intervened.
After the May 11, 1992 national elections the Senate’s partisan composition was, by common agreement: LDP 15, NPC 5, LAKAS-NUCD 3, LP‑PDP‑LABAN 1. Using the parties‑by‑senators × 12 / 24 formula, the parties’ proportional entitlements were computed as LDP 7.5, NPC 2.5, LAKAS‑NUCD 1.5, LP‑PDP‑LABAN 0.5. At the Senate organization meeting on August 27, 1992, the Majority Floor Leader (Senator Romulo) nominated eight LDP senators to the Commission on Appointments; petitioner Guingona and Senator John Osmeña (for NPC) objected.
To resolve the dispute Senator Tolentino proposed a temporary compromise: elect 12 members to the Commission — eight from LDP, two from NPC, one from LP‑PDP‑LABAN, and one from LAKAS‑NUCD — with the caveat that any party later found to have excess or deficiency would adjust representation. Despite objections this arrangement was approved and the twelve members were elected accordingly. Petitioner Guingona filed a petition for writ of prohibition on September 23, 1992 to prevent Senator Gonzales from recognizing Romulo and Tanada as members, arguing the Tolentino compromise violated Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution by improperly converting fractional entitlements and thereby diluting minority representation.
The Court treated the petition primarily as one for prohibition (alternatively mandamus), found the question justiciable, and proceeded under Rule 65 to resolve whether the contested elections complied with Section 18 and whether the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion in seating Romulo and Tanada.
Issues:
- Whether the election of Senators Alberto Romulo and Wigberto E. Tanada as members of the Commission on Appointments complied with Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
- If not, whether the respondent Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion in electing the two respondent Senators.
- If grave abuse of discretion occurred, whether a writ of prohibition should issue to enjoin the respondents from sitting and participating as members of the Commission on Appointments.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)