MACALINTAL - v - PET (2011)

ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL vs. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

EN BANC, G.R. No. 191618, NACHURA, J. June 7, 2011

Doctrine: Judicial power granted to the Supreme Court by the same Constitution is plenary. And under the doctrine of necessary implication, the additional jurisdiction bestowed by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution to decide presidential and vice-presidential elections contests includes the means necessary to carry it into effect.

Facts:

This is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal of the Decision in G.R. No. 191618 dated November 23, 2010, dismissing his petition and declaring the establishment of respondent Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as constitutional.

Petitioner reiterates his arguments on the alleged unconstitutional creation of the PET. To bolster his arguments that the PET is an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, petitioner invokes our ruling on the constitutionality of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). Petitioner cites the concurring opinion of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro that the PTC is a public office which cannot be created by the President, the power to do so being lodged exclusively with Congress. Thus, petitioner submits that if the President, as head of the Executive Department, cannot create the PTC, the Supreme Court, likewise, cannot create the PET in the absence of an act of legislature.

Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court cannot create the PET in the absence of an act of legislature.

Held: No.

Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution is sound and tenable. The provision reads: 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. Petitioner is adamant that the fact that [the provision] does not expressly prohibit [the] creation [of the PET] is not an authority for the Supreme Court to create the same. PET is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution and as supported by the discussions of the Members of the Constitutional Commission, which drafted the present Constitution. The explicit reference by the framers of our Constitution to constitutionalizing what was merely statutory before is not diluted by the absence of a phrase, line or word, mandating the Supreme Court to create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Judicial power granted to the Supreme Court by the same Constitution is plenary. And under the doctrine of necessary implication, the additional jurisdiction bestowed by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution to decide presidential and vice-presidential elections contests includes the means necessary to carry it into effect.

Petitioner still claims that the PET exercises quasi-judicial power and, thus, its members violate the proscription in Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution, which 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. Supreme Court: 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.

At the barangay and municipal levels, original and exclusive jurisdiction over election contests is vested in the municipal or metropolitan trial courts and the regional trial courts, respectively. At the higher levels - city, provincial, and regional, as well as congressional and senatorial - exclusive and original jurisdiction is lodged in the COMELEC and in the House of Representatives and Senate Electoral Tribunals, which are not, strictly and literally speaking, courts of law. Although not courts of law, they are, nonetheless, empowered to resolve election contests which involve, in essence, an exercise of judicial power, because of the explicit constitutional empowerment found in Section 2(2), Article IX-C (for the COMELEC) and Section 17, Article VI (for the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals) of the Constitution.  When the COMELEC, the HRET, and the SET decide election contests, their decisions are still subject to judicial review - via a petition for certiorari filed by the proper party - if there is a showing that the decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is beyond cavil that when the Supreme Court, as PET, resolves a presidential or vice-presidential election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power.

PET is not simply an agency to which Members of the Court were designated. Once again, the 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. A power without the means to use it, is a nullity. The vehicle for the exercise of this power, as intended by the Constitution and specifically mentioned by the Constitutional Commissioners during the discussions on the grant of power to this Court, is the PET.

Petitioners application of the decision in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission to the present case is an unmitigated quantum leap. The decision therein held that the PTC finds justification under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution. A plain reading of the constitutional provisions, i.e., last paragraph of Section 4 and Section 17, both of Article VII on the Executive Branch, reveals that the two are differently worded and deal with separate powers of the Executive and the Judicial Branches of government. And as previously adverted to, the basis for the constitution of the PET was, in fact, mentioned in the deliberations of the Members of the Constitutional Commission during the drafting of the present Constitution.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.