Case Summary (G.R. No. 134564)
Tribunal Composition
At the relevant time the SET was composed of nine members: three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice (Senior Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap as Chairman, Associate Justices Andres R. Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.) and six Senators (Joseph E. Estrada; Neptali A. Gonzales; Teofisto T. Guingona; Jose Lina, Jr.; Mamintal A.J. Tamano; Victor S. Ziga). Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was later designated to replace Senator Estrada.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- October 9, 1987: Petitioners filed SET Case No. 002-87, an election contest against 22 LABAN coalition candidates proclaimed senators-elect.
- November 17, 1987: Petitioners (except Estrada) filed a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senator-members of the SET.
- Prior filings: Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag filed petitions to recuse the same Senator-members; Senator Vicente T. Paterno filed comments. Memoranda and oral arguments were presented to the Tribunal.
- SET Resolutions denying the motion and its reconsideration: February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988.
- Petitioners sought certiorari in the Supreme Court to annul those Resolutions; the Supreme Court rendered the challenged resolution.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 17: establishes each House’s Electoral Tribunal as a nine-member body composed of three Supreme Court Justices (designated by the Chief Justice) and six Members of the respective Chamber, chosen on the basis of proportional representation; the senior Justice is the Chairman. The decision applies the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioners’ Requested Remedy and Rationale
Petitioners argued that public policy, fair play, and due process required mass disqualification of the Senator-members of the SET because those Senators were interested parties in the contest. As a practicable and constitutional alternative, petitioners proposed amending the SET’s Rules (Section 24) to permit resolution of the contest by only three members (the three Justices) where more than four members are disqualified—leaving a quorum of at least three members including one Justice and allowing adoption of resolutions by majority vote without abstentions.
Tribunal Proceedings and Tribunals’ Response
The SET received petitions to recuse and the petitioners’ motion for mass disqualification; memoranda were filed and oral arguments heard. The SET denied the motion for disqualification/inhibition and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration by the cited Resolutions, which the petitioners then sought to annul via certiorari in the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Analysis by the Supreme Court
The Court emphasized Article VI, Section 17’s express composition and purpose: a mixed body of judicial (three Justices) and legislative (six Senators) members to be the sole judge of contests involving election returns and qualifications of Senate members. The constitutional design—particularly the 2:1 ratio of Senators to Justices—signals an intent that Senators’ peers participate and that the legislative component not be completely excluded. The Court concluded that permitting the three Justices alone to adjudicate a senatorial contest (by rule amendment or otherwise) would contravene that constitutional design. The Constitution provides no mechanism for substituting disqualified Senator-members or for vesting exclusive adjudicative power in the Justices; hence the proposed rule change tailored to enable the Justices alone to decide was impermissible.
Practical and Public-Interest Considerations
The Court observed that the SET’s exclusive constitutional duty to decide senatorial contests must not be frustrated. A mass disqualification that removes the Senatorial component would leave the Tribunal unable to exercise the singular constitutional function assigned to it, effective
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 134564)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 248 Phil. 879, G.R. No. 83767, EN BANC, decided October 27, 1988.
- Case presented to the Supreme Court as a Special Civil Action for certiorari.
- Petitioners sought to nullify and set aside the Resolutions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988.
- Subject of the petition: denial by the Senate Electoral Tribunal (respondent) of petitioners' Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition (and denial of Motion for Reconsideration).
Parties
- Petitioners: the full roster of named individuals beginning with Firdausi Smail Abbas and ending with Fernando R. Veloso (as listed in the caption).
- Respondent: The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).
- Other named actors involved in proceedings before the SET: Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag (as a respondent in SET Case No. 002-87 who filed petitions to recuse), Senator Vicente T. Paterno (filed comments), Senator Joseph E. Estrada (initially a Senator-Member of the Tribunal and a respondent in SET Case No. 002-87), Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (designated Member replacing Estrada and later voluntarily inhibited himself).
Underlying Contests and Docketing
- On October 9, 1987, petitioners filed an election contest with the SET, docketed as SET Case No. 002-87.
- The contest was filed against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11, 1987 congressional elections by the Commission on Elections.
- There was a related contest, SET Case No. 001-87, filed by Augusto S. Sanchez naming Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and Senator Santanina T. Rasul as alternative respondents.
Composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal at Relevant Times
- At the time the contest was filed, the Tribunal consisted of nine members: three Justices of the Supreme Court and six Senators.
- The three Justices: Senior Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap (Chairman), Associate Justices Andres R. Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.
- The six Senators: Joseph E. Estrada, Neptali A. Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr., Mamintal A.J. Tamano, and Victor S. Ziga.
- Subsequent change: Senator Joseph E. Estrada affiliated with the Liberal Party and resigned as the Opposition's representative in the Tribunal; Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was designated a Member of the Tribunal replacing Estrada.
- Senator Juan Ponce Enrile later voluntarily inhibited himself from participating in hearings and deliberations of the Tribunal in both SET Case No. 002-87 and SET Case No. 001-87 because of his personal involvement as a party in those cases.
Motions, Petitions, and Procedural Steps Before the Tribunal
- On November 17, 1987, petitioners (excluding Senator Estrada but including Senator Enrile) filed a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senators-Members of the Tribunal from hearing and resolving SET Case No. 002-87.
- Ground for the motion: all Senator-Members of the Tribunal were alleged to be interested parties to the case, as respondents in the contest.
- Prior thereto, Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag (a respondent in the same contest) filed a Petition to Recuse and later a Supplemental Petition to Recuse the same Senator-Members of the Tribunal on essentially the same ground.
- Senator Vicente T. Paterno, another respondent, filed comments on both the petitions to recuse and the motion for disqualification or inhibition.
- Memoranda were filed and oral arguments were heard by the Tribunal on those matters.
- The Tribunal thereafter issued Resolutions dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988 denying, respectively, petitioners' Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition and their Motion for Reconsideration.
Relief and Procedural Remedy Sought in the Supreme Court
- Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to annul the SET Resolutions of February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988.
- The petition contended that the Tribunal gravely abused its discretion in denying the motions and that the mass disqualification was required by public policy, fair play, and due process.
Petitioners’ Principal Arguments and Proposed Solution
- Petitioners argued that public policy and norms of fair play and due process required mass disqualification/inhibition of Senator-Members who were respondents/interested parties.
- They contended that the doctrine of necessity, as understood by the Tribunal in its Resolutions, did not preclude a constitutionally acceptable alternative.
- Pro