Title
Supreme Court
Drilon vs. De Venecia, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 180055
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2009
LP sought proportional CA representation; petition moot after LP member's designation. Senator Madrigal's challenge dismissed for lack of standing and premature recourse.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180055)

Facts of the Case

In August 2007, following the election of Senate and House contingents to the CA, members of the Liberal Party sought to secure representation within the CA, arguing their constitutional entitlement to a seat based on Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Initial requests were made to then Speaker De Venecia, but no affirmative action was taken. This led to the filing of the petition G.R. No. 180055 by Drilon and others in October 2007, claiming that the exclusion of the Liberal Party from the CA violated their constitutional rights to proportional representation.

Legal Issues Presented

The first petition, G.R. No. 180055, raised substantive questions regarding constitutional interpretation, specifically whether the Liberal Party, with twenty members, was entitled to a seat in the CA and whether the actions of the respondents constituted grave abuse of discretion by failing to provide for proportional representation as stipulated in the Constitution. Additionally, they sought a variety of judicial remedies, including the annulment of the current CA composition.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents contested the petition, asserting that each House of Congress holds the authority to elect its members to the CA and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a direct legal injury necessitating the court's intervention. They argued that constitutional provisions did not mandate complete CA membership to function, noting the legality of their existing appointments under the current composition.

Subsequent Developments

In April and May 2008, Senator Madrigal filed an additional petition (G.R. No. 183055), which raised similar proportional representation concerns regarding both the Senate and House contingents. She claimed the current composition violated constitutional mandates and sought court orders to halt CA activities pending reorganization.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

On review, the Supreme Court consolidated both petitions and assessed the merits. The Court determined that subsequent developments—specifically, the appointment of a Liberal Party member to the House contingent of the CA—rendered the first petition moot. For the second petition, the Court found that Senator Madrigal lacked standing as she did not substantiate a direct injury or personal interest arising from the CA's composition, emphasizing that the matter should initially be resolved within the legislative body.

Moreover, the Court reiterated that issues concerning party affiliations and appointments within the CA were non-ju

...continue reading

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