Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25716)
Facts:
Fernando Lopez v. Gerardo Roxas and Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. L-25716. July 28, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court.In the November 9, 1965 general elections, Fernando Lopez and Gerardo Roxas were principal contenders for Vice‑President. By Resolution No. 2 of the two Houses of Congress in joint session (approved December 17, 1965), Congress, acting as board of canvassers, proclaimed Lopez elected Vice‑President with 3,531,550 votes, a plurality of 26,724 over Roxas, who received 3,504,826 votes.
On January 5, 1966, Roxas filed Election Protest No. 2 with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), contesting Lopez’s proclamation on the ground that Roxas actually obtained the larger number of votes. The PET had been created by Republic Act No. 1793, which provided that the PET “shall be composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court” and “shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president‑elect and the vice‑president‑elect.”
On February 22, 1966, Lopez instituted an original action in the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to prevent the PET from hearing Roxas’s election contest. Lopez challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1793 on multiple grounds: that the Constitution is silent as to election contests for President and Vice‑President and thus Congress may not authorize such contests; that allowing a recount by the PET undermined Congress’s exclusive authority to canvass and proclaim; that RA 1793 effectively amended the Constitution and abridged constitutional tenure; that the PET (as constituted) was an inferior tribunal composed of Justices whose decisions could be reviewed by the Supreme Court and thus violated separation of powers and the appointing power; and that Justices of the Supreme Court could not validly sit on a tribunal whose decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court.
This case reached the Supreme Court by an original petition for prohibition. The Court considered constitutional text (notably Article VIII, Sec. 1 and 2 and Article VI, Sec. 11), prior decisions on justiciability and judicial power, and historical materials from the Constitutional Convention. The Court earlier made a resolution (dated July 8, 196...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Republic Act No. 1793 constitutional insofar as it creates a Presidential Electoral Tribunal and vests it with jurisdiction to hear contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president‑elect and vice‑president‑elect?
- If RA 1793 is constitutional, should the Supreme Court grant prohibition to prevent the PET from hearing Roxas’s...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)