Title
Bondoc vs. Pineda
Case
G.R. No. 97710
Decision Date
Sep 26, 1991
House of Representatives interfered with HRET's independence by withdrawing a member to influence an election decision; Supreme Court annulled the action, upholding HRET's autonomy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27360)

Facts of the Election Contest

In the 1987 elections, Pineda received 31,700 votes and Bondoc 28,400. Bondoc filed an electoral protest with the HRET, composed of three Supreme Court Justices and six House members chosen on a proportional‐representation basis. After ballot revision and a re‐count, the HRET majority (5–4) determined that Bondoc led by 107 votes. Congressman Camasura cast a decisive vote for Bondoc, later disclosing it to LDP leadership. Fearing an adverse HRET ruling, the LDP expelled Camasura on grounds of “party disloyalty.” The House then voted to withdraw and rescind his HRET nomination. Without Camasura’s vote, the HRET cancelled the planned promulgation of its decision in Bondoc’s favor.

Constitutional Foundation of the HRET

Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution establishes the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals as the “sole judge” of contests concerning election, returns, and qualifications of their members. Each tribunal’s nine‐member composition—three Supreme Court Justices designated by the Chief Justice and six legislators chosen on a proportional‐representation basis—reflects a balance between judicial expertise and political representation. The “sole judge” language underscores the exclusive jurisdiction and independence of the tribunals from both legislative and judicial encroachment.

Independence and Impartiality of the Tribunal

The framers intended the HRET to function as an impartial, quasi‐judicial body within a political environment. Although two‐thirds of its members are legislators, they must serve not as party representatives but as neutral adjudicators once seated. Disloyalty to party or breach of political discipline cannot justify removal from the tribunal, since such grounds threaten its independence and undermine public confidence in electoral justice.

Invalidity of the House’s Resolution

The House’s action to rescind Camasura’s nomination for “party disloyalty” constituted a grave abuse of discretion for two reasons:

  1. It interfered with the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET, effectively manipulating its composition to frustrate a decision duly reached through ballot examination and judicial deliberation.
  2. It violated Camasura’s security of tenure as a tribunal member, which mirrors the constitutional protection afforded to the judiciary and may be terminated only for valid legal cause (e.g., death, disability, formal change of party affiliation), none of which existed here.

Security of Tenure for Tribunal Members

Membership in the HRET is coextensive with the legislative term and cannot be curtailed at will. Removal for “party disloyalty,” absent formal re‐registration in another party, fails to m

    ...continue reading

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