MACALINTAL - v - PET (2010)
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL vs. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
EN BANC, G.R. No. 191618, November 23,
2010, NACHURA, J.
Doctrine: The
present Constitution has allocated to the Supreme Court, in conjunction with
latter’s exercise of judicial power inherent in all courts, the task of
deciding presidential and vice-presidential election contests, with full
authority in the exercise thereof. The power wielded by PET is a derivative of
the plenary judicial power allocated to courts of law, expressly provided in
the Constitution. PET, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be
an institution independent, but not separate, from the judicial department,
i.e., the Supreme Court.
Facts:
This is a petition filed by Atty.
Romulo B. Macalintal (Atty. Macalintal), that questions the constitution of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as an illegal and unauthorized progeny
of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution: The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President
or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
While petitioner concedes that the
Supreme Court is "authorized to promulgate its rules for the
purpose," he chafes at the creation of a purportedly "separate
tribunal" complemented by a budget allocation, a seal, a set of personnel
and confidential employees, to effect the constitutional mandate. Petitioner’s
averment is supposedly supported by the provisions of the 2005 Rules of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (2005 PET Rules), specifically:
(1) Rule 3 which provides for membership of the PET wherein the
Chief Justice and the Associate Justices are designated as "Chairman and
Members," respectively;
(2) Rule 8(e) which authorizes the Chairman of the PET to appoint
employees and confidential employees of every member thereof;
(3) Rule 9 which provides for a separate "Administrative Staff
of the Tribunal" with the appointment of a Clerk and a Deputy Clerk of the
Tribunal who, at the discretion of the PET, may designate the Clerk of Court
(en banc) as the Clerk of the Tribunal; and
(4) Rule 11 which provides for a "seal" separate and
distinct from the Supreme Court seal.
Main Issue: Whether or not the constitution of the
PET, composed of the Members of the Court, is unconstitutional, and violates
Section 4, Article VII and Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Ruling: No.
On its face, the contentious constitutional
provision does not specify the establishment of the PET. But neither does it
preclude, much less prohibit, otherwise. It entertains divergent
interpretations which, though unacceptable to petitioner, do not include his
restrictive view – one which really does not offer a solution. Section 4,
Article VII of the Constitution, the provision under scrutiny, should be read
with other related provisions of the Constitution such as the parallel
provisions on the Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the
Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate to act as sole judge of election
contests involving our country’s highest public officials, and its rule-making
authority in connection therewith, is not restricted; it includes all necessary
powers implicit in the exercise thereof.
The mirabile dictu of the grant of
jurisdiction to this Court, albeit found in the Article on the executive branch
of government, and the constitution of the PET, is evident in the discussions
of the Constitutional Commission. On the exercise of this Court’s judicial
power as sole judge of presidential and vice-presidential election contests,
and to promulgate its rules for this purpose, we find the proceedings in the Constitutional
Commission most instructive:
MR. DAVIDE. x x x, after the words "Vice-President," I
propose to.add AND MAY PROMULGATE ITS RULES FOR THE PURPOSE. This refers to the
Supreme Court sitting en banc. This is also to confer on the Supreme Court exclusive
authority to enact the necessary rules while acting as sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President
or Vice-President.
MR. REGALADO. x x x the rule-making power of the Supreme Court with
respect to its internal procedure is already implicit under the Article on the
Judiciary; considering, however, that according to the Commissioner, the
purpose of this is to indicate the sole power of the Supreme Court without
intervention by the legislature in the promulgation of its rules on this
particular point, x x x
FR. BERNAS. x x x Election contests are, by their nature, judicial.
Therefore, they are cognizable only by courts. If, for instance, we did not
have a constitutional provision on an electoral tribunal for the Senate or an
electoral tribunal for the House, normally, as composed, that cannot be given
jurisdiction over contests.
The conflict was actually whether there
was an attempt to create two Supreme Courts and the answer of the Supreme Court
was: "No, this did not involve the creation of two Supreme Courts, but
precisely we are giving new jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, as it is allowed
by the Constitution. Congress may allocate various jurisdictions." It is
not an infringement on the separation of powers because the power being given
to the Supreme Court is a judicial power.
To foreclose all arguments of petitioner,
we reiterate that the establishment of the PET simply constitutionalized
what was statutory before the 1987 Constitution. Section 1 of Republic Act
No. 1793, which provides that: "There
shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal x x x which shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the president-elect and the vice-president-elect of the
Philippines." has the effect of giving said defeated candidate the
legal right to contest judicially the election of the President-elect of
Vice-President-elect and to demand a recount of the votes case for the office
involved in the litigation, as well as to secure a judgment declaring that he
is the one elected president or vice-president, as the case may be, and that,
as such, he is entitled to assume the duties attached to said office. And by
providing, further, that the Presidential Electoral Tribunal "shall be
composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten Members of the Supreme
Court," said legislation has conferred upon such Court an additional
original jurisdiction of an exclusive character. Republic Act No. 1793 has not
created a new or separate court. It has merely conferred upon the Supreme Court
the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. It is obvious that the PET
was constituted in implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution, and it faithfully complies – not unlawfully defies – the
constitutional directive. The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the
change in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices into
Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, respectively, was designed simply to
highlight the singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunal’s functions as a
special electoral court.
As regards petitioner’s claim that the
PET exercises quasi-judicial functions in contravention of Section 12, Article
VIII of the Constitution. The issue raised by petitioner is more imagined than
real. Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution reads: SEC. 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions. The traditional grant of
judicial power is found in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution which
provides that the power "shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law." Consistent with our
presidential system of government, the function of "dealing with the
settlement of disputes, controversies or conflicts involving rights, duties or
prerogatives that are legally demandable and enforceable" is apportioned to courts of justice.
With the advent of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power was expanded to
include "the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government." The power was expanded, but it remained absolute. The
set up embodied in the Constitution and statutes characterizes the resolution
of electoral contests as essentially an exercise of judicial power.
The present Constitution has allocated to
the Supreme Court, in conjunction with latter’s exercise of judicial power
inherent in all courts, the task of deciding presidential and vice-presidential
election contests, with full authority in the exercise thereof. The power
wielded by PET is a derivative of the plenary judicial power allocated to
courts of law, expressly provided in the Constitution. PET, as intended by the
framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution independent, but not
separate, from the judicial department, i.e., the Supreme Court.
