Case Summary (G.R. No. 106971)
Grounds Asserted by Senator Tanada
Senator Tanada’s motion argued (1) erroneous factual precedent appreciation by the Court; (2) failure to respect the multi-party system recognized by the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions; (3) the alleged mandatory nature of filling twelve CA seats; and (4) absence of grave abuse of discretion in his election to the CA.
Grounds Asserted by Senators Gonzales and Romulo
Senators Gonzales and Romulo contended (1) inconsistency with prior Supreme Court rulings in Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr. and Daza v. Singson; (2) that twelve CA members are required for the Commission to function constitutionally; (3) that the Tolentino Compromise Formula adopted by the Senate should govern selection; and (4) that their election complied with the multi-party principle and resolved fractional membership through realignment.
Procedural Posture of Responses
The NPC filed separate comments to the respondents’ motions on December 16, 1992; the petitioners filed comments on January 7, 1993. The Court considered respondents’ motions and the opposing submissions and denied the motions for reconsideration.
Governing Provision and Parties’ Numerical Representation
The Court anchored its analysis on Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution. It accepted the parties’ agreed Senate numerical representation: LDP 7.5, LP-PDP-LABAN 0.5, NPC 2.5, LAKAS-NUCD 1.5. The constitutional mandate requires election of CA members “on the basis of proportional representation” of political parties represented in each House.
Interpretation of Fractional Allocations and Majority Action
The Court explained that converting two fractional halves into a whole (i.e., aggregating fractional entitlements) to increase the majority party’s CA membership (specifically to elect Senator Romulo) violated Section 18’s proportional representation mandate. Such aggregation reduced another party’s proportional share and thereby contravened the Constitution’s check on majority dominance.
Precedent of the Late Senator Lorenzo Tanada Considered and Distinguished
Respondent Tanada relied on the late Senator Lorenzo Tanada’s historical membership in the CA. The Court observed that the cited instances involved coalitions and political alliances (e.g., Citizens Party with Nacionalista Party) and were not judicially adjudicated as constitutionally valid constructions of proportional representation. The Court held that repeated legislative practice without judicial confirmation cannot override the constitutional command.
Correction of Party-Listing Error and Relevance to Proportionality
The Court acknowledged an earlier erroneous listing of party affiliations based on the May 11, 1992 election results but observed respondents accepted that the appropriate basis for determining proportional representation is the senators’ actual party membership at the time of CA organization. This concession rendered the earlier clerical error immaterial to the decision’s legal holding.
Nomination Process and Senate Procedure
The Court detailed that party rules require parties to nominate their CA candidates; Senator Tanada was nominated by the LP and presented by Majority Leader (Senator Romulo) in his duty to submit previously nominated candidates. The Court emphasized that presentation for election to the CA was consistent with Senate procedure but does not validate a result that breaches the constitutional proportionality requirement.
Minimum Membership and Scope of Proportional Representation
Relying on prior rulings (e.g., Coseteng and Daza), the Court clarified that constitutional proportional representation extends to all parties represented in each House but does not guarantee every party a CA seat irrespective of numerical thresholds. Proportional representation requires a minimum party membership in the relevant House to claim entitlement; a lone senator’s mere presence does not automatically secure CA membership for that party.
Whether Election of Full Complement of Twelve Is Mandatory
The Court ruled that the Constitution’s specification of “twelve Senators” indicates the maximum complement, not an absolute prerequisite to the CA’s lawful functioning. The paramount constitutional directive is proportional representation; if adherence to proportionality prevents filling all twelve slots
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 106971)
Citation, Court and Date
- 292 Phil. 327 EN BANC; G.R. No. 106971; March 01, 1993.
- Resolution authored by Justice Campos, Jr.
- Decision announces denial with finality of motions for reconsideration filed by respondents Senators Wigberto E. Tanada, Neptali A. Gonzales and Alberto Romulo; petitioner-in-intervention NPC and petitioners filed comments.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Respondent Senator Wigberto Tanada filed a motion for reconsideration on October 27, 1992.
- Respondents Senate President Neptali A. Gonzales and Senator Alberto Romulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification on October 30, 1992.
- NPC filed separate comments on December 16, 1992; petitioners filed comments on January 7, 1993.
- The Court considered the motions and related comments and denied both Motions for Reconsideration with finality.
Grounds Asserted in Respondent Senator Tanada's Motion
- Alleged erroneous appreciation of relevant factual precedents in the October 20, 1992 decision.
- Alleged failure to account for the reality of the multi-party system recognized by the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions.
- Claim that it is mandatory to fill up twelve (12) seats in the Commission on Appointments.
- Assertion that the Senate did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it elected Senator Tanada to the Commission on Appointments.
Grounds Asserted in the Motion of Senators Gonzales and Romulo
- Allegation of inconsistency between the Court's decision and Supreme Court rulings in Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr. and Daza v. Singson.
- Claim that twelve (12) members of the Commission on Appointments must be elected to enable it to function constitutionally.
- Assertion that the Tolentino Compromise Formula, adopted by the Senate and accepted by all political parties, must govern selection of Senators to the Commission on Appointments.
- Contention that the election of the respondent Senators complied with the multi-party system and contemplated realignment to remove fractional membership of any party in the Commission.
Central Constitutional Provision at Issue
- Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution: provides that the Commission on Appointments consists of the President of the Senate as ex-officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and others, "elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation."
- Court emphasized interpretation and application of Article VI, Section 18 as determinative.
Facts Relevant to Party Representation and Fractions
- Parties’ mathematical representation in the Senate (as accepted by all parties) stated as:
- LDP - 7.5
- LP-PDP-LABAN - 0.5
- NPC - 2.5
- LAKAS-NUCD - 1.5
- The practical problem: allocation of fractions (0.5) to each party and how to treat such fractional entitlements.
- Majority (LDP) added fractional halves together (e.g., adding 0.5 to 7.5) to elect Senator Romulo, which the Court found reduced another party’s proportional representation and thus violated Section 18.
Court’s Holding on Proportional Representation and Fractional Membership
- The Court held that membership in the Commission must be based on proportional representation of the political parties as required by Article VI, Section 18.
- It found the LDP majority’s act of converting fractional halves into a whole (to elect Senator Romulo) violated Section 18 by augmenting LDP’s share and reducing another party’s rightful representation.
- The provision on proportional representation is mandatory and does not permit the majority party to disregard or disobey the rule on proportional representation.
- The rule on proportional representation functions as a check on the power of the majority; it prevents a majority party from claiming more than its constitutional entitlement.
On Past Practices and Precedent (Senator Lorenzo Tanada and Coalitions)
- The Court addressed respondents’ reliance on the membership of the late Senator Lorenzo Tanada as precedent:
- Noted that the decision in question referred to the former Senator’s membership during his first election as Senator in 1953-1954.
- Observed that in subsequent years the Commission’s composition reflected varying memberships and coalitions; the late Senator’s membership was acquiesced to and never litigated, so it did not reach the Court.
- The late Senator’s election to the Commission was principally due to coalition arrangements (Citizens Party coalescing with Nacionalista Party) and not because lone-party membership ipso facto entitled the party to a Commission seat.
- The Court emphasized that mere legislative tolerance or practice cannot, without judicial acquiescence, ripen into a binding doctrine or valid interpretation of the Constitution.
- Cited that the Senate historically resorted to coalitions to resolve fractional memberships and to avoid fractional representation problems; but repeated legislative misinterpretation cannot vest power contrary to constitutional command.
Clarification on Party Affiliation and Basis for Determining Proportional Representation
- The Court acknowledged an erroneous reference in its prior decision regarding party affiliation based on the May 11, 1992 election results (giving LDP only 15 members and including Senator