G.R. No. L-25716 - Lopez vs. Roxas

Fernando Lopez (petitioner) and Gerardo Roxas (respondent) were contenders for the Office of Vice-President of the Philippines in the November 9, 1965 general elections.
By Resolution No. 2 (December 17, 1965), the two Houses of Congress, convened in joint session as the board for canvassing votes for President and Vice-President, proclaimed Fernando Lopez as elected Vice-President with 3,531,550 votes, a plurality of 26,724 over Roxas, who had 3,504,826 votes.
On January 5, 1966, Roxas filed Election Protest No. 2 with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), contesting Lopez’s election on the ground that Roxas actually obtained the largest number of votes.

On February 22, 1966, Lopez filed an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the PET from hearing the election contest.
Lopez argued that Republic Act No. 1793 (which created the PET) was unconstitutional and all proceedings by the PET were null and void.

The Constitution is silent as to election contests for President and Vice-President; therefore, Congress cannot authorize such contests by law.
Election contests over the President and Vice-President undermine the exclusive constitutional power of Congress to canvass votes and proclaim winners.
The review of votes by the PET is inconsistent with Congress's exclusive canvassing authority.
The Constitution fixes the tenure of the President and Vice-President, which cannot be abridged by legislative means like R.A. 1793.
R.A. 1793, by allowing PET to review congressional proclamations, effectively amends the Constitution without formal amendment.
The constitutional convention rejected provisions creating an electoral commission for President and Vice-President contests.
It is illegal for Supreme Court Justices to sit as members of the PET, since PET decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court, making the PET an inferior court improperly composed.
Congress cannot appoint members of the PET, as appointment powers belong to the executive (President).

Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution vests judicial power in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power is the authority to resolve justiciable controversies involving enforceable rights and to afford remedies.
Congress may define judicial rights and apportion jurisdiction among courts, subject to constitutional limits.
Prior to R.A. 1793, defeated presidential or vice-presidential candidates had no justiciable right to contest proclaimed results or demand recounts.

Section 1 of R.A. 1793 provides for the establishment of an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal composed of the Chief Justice and other Supreme Court Justices.
The PET has sole jurisdiction over contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of the President-elect and Vice-President-elect.
R.A. 1793 grants defeated candidates the legal right to contest the proclamation judicially and to seek recounts and declarations of rightful election.

R.A. 1793 does not create a new or separate court but confers additional exclusive original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court functioning as the PET.
Analogous to courts of first instance performing functions in special jurisdictions (e.g., probate, land registration), the Supreme Court when sitting as PET exercises additional but distinct jurisdiction.
The PET is not inferior to the Supreme Court; it is the Supreme Court discharging specialized duties.
The imposition of additional duties on members of the Supreme Court by Congress does not violate the executive’s appointment power, as new duties alone do not constitute new offices or appointments.

Judicial power to decide contests concerning election, returns, and qualifications of public officials is essentially judicial and vested in the judiciary, except as provided otherwise.
Article VI, Section 11, creates electoral tribunals for Senators and Representatives that exclusively decide election contests involving their respective Members.
That constitutional provision indicates Congress's discretion to establish procedures and courts to hear presidential or vice-presidential contest cases as well.

During the 1935 Constitutional Convention, a proposal to establish an Electoral Commission for President and Vice-President contests was rejected to mirror the U.S. Constitution, which contains no similar provision.
Statements of leading delegates, including Chairman Claro M. Recto, indicated intention to leave the resolution of such contests to ordinary legislation and not in the Constitution.
The U.S. precedent involved creation of an electoral commission by statute to resolve the 1876 presidential election dispute, without constitutional authorization.

Congress’s function in canvassing and proclaiming election results is ministerial and executive in nature, based on certified election returns.
The PET’s function is judicial, to determine irregularities, recount ballots, and decide the true winner based on evidence.
This differentiation ensures the coexistence of congressional proclamation and judicial review without constitutional conflict.

The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated July 8, 1966, upheld the validity of Republic Act No. 1793 as conferring additional jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
Petitioner Lopez filed a motion requesting clarification on procedural matters concerning the filing and docketing of the election contest but was denied.
The Court dismissed Lopez’s petition and denied the writs of prohibition and injunction with costs.

Whether Republic Act No. 1793, creating the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to hear contests involving the election of the President and Vice-President, is constitutional.
Whether Congress has the power to vest the jurisdiction to hear election contests for President and Vice-President in a tribunal composed of Supreme Court Justices.
Whether the functions of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal encroach upon the exclusive canvassing and proclamation authority of Congress under the Constitution.
Whether appointment powers are violated by Congress appointing members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
Whether the tenure of the President and Vice-President can be abridged by an election protest under Republic Act No. 1793.
Whether the Judicial power, as vested by the Constitution, excludes or includes jurisdiction over election contests involving the President and Vice-President.