Case Summary (G.R. No. 86344)
Key Individuals and Context
- Petitioner: Raul A. Daza — originally chosen as one of the House of Representatives’ twelve members to the Commission on Appointments, listed as a representative of the Liberal Party.
- Respondents: Rep. Luis C. Singson — elected by the House to the Commission on Appointments after reorganization; Hon. Raoul V. Victorino — Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, sued in that capacity.
- Context: Dispute arose when the House revised its Commission on Appointments representation after a political realignment, withdrawing petitioner’s seat and giving it to the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), and thereafter electing Singson to that seat.
Petitioner, Respondent, and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner sought prohibition and injunction to prevent respondent from occupying the seat; a temporary restraining order was issued on January 13, 1989, enjoining both parties from serving. The petition challenged the legality of petitioner’s removal and respondent’s assumption of the seat.
Key Dates
- May 11, 1987: Congressional elections and initial apportionment of House seats in the Commission on Appointments.
- September 16, 1988: Reorganization leading to creation/realignment of the LDP and defections from the Liberal Party.
- December 5, 1988: House elected a new set of representatives to the Commission on Appointments, excluding petitioner and including Singson.
- January 13, 1989: Petition filed and TRO issued.
- November 23, 1989: Commission on Elections (en banc) affirmed registration of the LDP.
Applicable Constitutional Provisions and Legal Authorities
- Article VI, Section 18 (text reproduced in the record): provides for the Commission on Appointments and requires the twelve House members to be elected by the House on the basis of proportional representation of political parties and party-list organizations represented therein.
- The Court’s jurisdictional analysis and precedent draw on prior decisions distinguishing political questions from justiciable legality issues (e.g., Tanada v. Cuenco, Cunanan v. Tan) and on constitutional text concerning judicial power and review of grave abuse of discretion.
Factual Background
- After the 1987 elections the House proportionally apportioned its twelve Commission on Appointments seats among parties, and Daza was selected as a Liberal Party representative. On September 16, 1988, reorganization produced a new political alignment: 24 Liberal Party members resigned to join the LDP, allegedly swelling the LDP’s numbers and reducing the Liberal Party to 17 members. The House then revised Commission representation, withdrawing one seat from the petitioner’s party and allocating it to the LDP; on December 5, 1988, Singson was elected to the newly allocated LDP seat.
Petitioner’s Principal Contentions
- Petitioner relied on Cunanan v. Tan, arguing that his election to the Commission on Appointments was effectively permanent and could not be upset by transient alignments. He asserted the LDP was not a duly registered political party and had not attained the political stability or permanence required to justify reorganization of Commission representation.
Respondent’s Principal Defenses
- Respondent contended the dispute raised a political question beyond judicial review, argued he was improperly impleaded (the real actor being the House), and asserted the Constitution imposes no requirement that a political party be registered to qualify for proportional representation in the Commission.
Jurisdictional Determination: Justiciability vs. Political Question
- The Court determined the controversy is justiciable because it concerns the legality, not the wisdom, of the House’s action in altering Commission membership. The distinction adopted from prior jurisprudence is that questions of policy and discretion are political, whereas questions whether an act conforms to constitutional prescription are legal and reviewable. The Court invoked precedent (Tanada v. Cuenco) to show that the judiciary must decide whether elections or selections comport with constitutional mandates.
Expanded Judicial Review and Procedural Technicalities
- The Court further observed that even were the question political in nature, the expanded constitutional jurisdiction to determine grave abuse of discretion (i.e., lack or excess of jurisdiction) enabled judicial review. The Court rejected the impleader objection as non-fatal: the petition could be treated as a quo warranto challenge to respondent’s right to the seat, and technical procedural defenses may be set aside where fundamental constitutional issues of public importance are presented.
Review of Cunanan v. Tan and Its Principles
- Cunanan v. Tan was examined: in that case a temporary “Allied Majority” of defectors had reorganized Commission representation in a way the Court found invalid because the shifts were temporary and did not reflect permanent severance of party allegiance. The Cunanan principle is that only permanent shifts in party affiliation, not transient vote arrangements or temporary coalitions, can justify reorganization of constitutionally mandated proportional representation; otherwise the Commission would be subject to constant reorganization.
Effect of Subsequent Development — LDP Registration
- A dispositive factual development occurred: the Commission on Elections, in an en banc resolution of November 23, 1989, affirmed earlier registration of the LDP as a political party. This undercut petitioner’s core contention that the LDP lacked legal existence or the rights of a political party for purposes of determining proportional representation.
Rejection of Additional Permanence Tests Advanced by Petitioner
- The Court rejected petitioner’s proposal that a newly organized, albeit registered, party must additionally “pass the test of time” or survive a subsequent general election before being entitled to representation. The Court reasoned that such a requirement would be inconsistent and arbitrary (citing historical examples where parties shortly after formation nonetheless received recogn
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 86344)
Citation and Court
- Reported at 259 Phil. 980, En Banc, G.R. No. 86344, decided December 21, 1989.
- Decision authored by Justice Cruz.
- Full court participation: Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur. Justice Sarmiento took no part and was disclosed to be Secretary General of the Liberal Party.
Factual Background
- After the May 11, 1987 congressional elections, the House of Representatives apportioned its twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments among political parties represented in the House, including Lakas ng Bansa, PDP-Laban, NP-Unido, the Liberal Party (LP), and the KBL, in accordance with Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution.
- Petitioner Raul A. Daza was chosen and listed as one of the House representatives in the Commission on Appointments as a representative of the Liberal Party.
- On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized, producing a political realignment in the House: twenty-four members of the Liberal Party formally resigned from the LP and joined the LDP, increasing LDP membership to 159 and reducing the LP to 17 members.
- Following this development, the House revised its representation in the Commission on Appointments by withdrawing the seat occupied by petitioner Daza and allocating it to the LDP.
- On December 5, 1988, the House elected a new set of representatives to the Commission on Appointments that included respondent Luis C. Singson as an additional LDP member and excluded the petitioner.
- Petitioner filed a petition with this Court on January 13, 1989 challenging his removal and the assumption of his seat by respondent Singson; the Court issued a temporary restraining order that same day preventing both petitioner and respondent from serving in the Commission on Appointments.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition filed by Rep. Raul A. Daza seeking prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction to prevent respondent Singson from assuming the Commission on Appointments seat claimed by petitioner.
- Temporary restraining order (TRO) issued January 13, 1989 enjoining both parties from serving in the Commission on Appointments.
- Solicitor General submitted a Comment as amicus curiae pursuant to Court order.
- The Court ultimately resolved the petition on the merits and disposed of the TRO.
Issue(s) Presented
- Whether petitioner Daza could be removed from the Commission on Appointments after the House revised its representation following a political realignment.
- Whether the reorganization of the House representation in the Commission was lawful where the change stemmed from the formation and ascendance of the LDP and the transfer of 24 LP members.
- Whether the question was a non-justiciable political question outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
- Whether a political party must be duly registered (and/or must have attained political stability over time) to be entitled to proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments under Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution.
Constitutional Provision at Issue
- Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution as quoted by the Court:
- "Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and Twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members."
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Petitioner invoked the doctrine in Cunanan v. Tan to argue that his election to the Commission on Appointments is permanent and he cannot be removed by subsequent reorganization.
- He asserted that the LDP is not a duly registered political party under Article IX-B, Section 2(5) (in relation to other constitutional provisions) and has not achieved political stability; thus its claimed ascendance does not constitute the permanent political realignment contemplated by the Constitution to justify reorganizing Commission membership.
- Petitioner argued the constitutional intent behind Section 18 is to give representation only to political parties duly registered with the Commission on Elections.
Respondent’s Contentions
- Respondent argued the controversy involves a political question beyond judicial review and therefore non-justiciable.
- He contended he was improperly impleaded and that the real party in interest was the House of Representatives which altered its Commission on Appointments representation.
- Respondent maintained that nowhere in the Constitution is party registration required to entitle a party to proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments.
- Respondent and supporters invoked Cunanan v. Tan to assert that the House may reorganize representation to reflect permanent shifts in political alignments.
Amicus Curiae and Other Procedural Developments
- Solicitor General filed a Comment as amicus curiae pursuant to Court order and participat