Title
Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales
Case
G.R. No. 106971
Decision Date
Oct 20, 1992
Senators Romulo and Tañada's election to the Commission on Appointments was nullified for violating proportional representation under the 1987 Constitution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 106971)

Applicable Law

The salient constitutional provision under consideration is Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which lays down the framework for the creation and membership of the Commission on Appointments. This section mandates that the Commission comprises twelve senators and twelve representatives from the House of Representatives, elected based on proportional representation of the political parties.

Proportional Representation Controversy

The controversy centers on the election of Senators Romulo and Tanada to the Commission on Appointments. The petitioners argue that the election violates the principle of proportional representation found in the Constitution. The Senate, being composed of 15 members from the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party), 5 from NPC, 3 from LAKAS-NUCD, and 1 from LP-PDP-LABAN, claims to have calculated their representation proportions correctly. However, the petitioners contend that this approach unduly increases the representation of the majority party (LDP) while diminishing the rightful representation of the minority parties (LAKAS-NUCD and NPC).

Petition for Prohibition

On September 23, 1992, Guingona, representing LAKAS-NUCD, filed a petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondents from sitting as members of the Commission on Appointments. The petition emphasizes that the compromise arrangement allowing the LDP to nominate eight senators, while the NPC received only two, infringes upon the minority parties' rights to proportional representation.

Constitutional Interpretation

The Court affirms that the issues presented in the petition are rooted in constitutional interpretation, particularly Section 18 of Article VI. The Court must determine whether the actions of the Senate in electing Senators Romulo and Tanada align with constitutional mandates. The well-established interpretations provide that proportional representation is a guideline that should be adhered to strictly, ensuring that no party exceeds its entitled representation.

Findings on Representation

Upon examination, the Court recognizes that fractional membership under the proportional representation model must be properly allocated. The petitioners successfully argue that converting fractional memberships of parties into whole numbers undermines the proportional representation principle. The LDP's actions in nominating Romulo and Tanada led to an improper representation, clearly violating the Constitution.

Impact on Minority Parties

The decision emphasizes the necessity to uphold the balance of power within the Senate by adhering strictly to the rule of proportional representation. By allowing the majority party to effectively "round up" its representation at the expense of minority parties, the integrity of the Commission on Appointments is compromised.

Rulings and Consequences

The Court ultimately rules that the election of Senators Romulo and Tanada to the Commission violates Section 18 of Article VI. As a result, a writ of prohibition is issued, which mandates the respondents to cease their actions as members

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.