You are on page 1of 11

G.R. No.

86344 December 21, 1989


REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner,
vs.
REP. LUIS C. SINGSON a! "ON. RAOUL #. #IC$ORINO IN $"E
LA$$ER%S CAPACI$& AS SECRE$AR& O' $"E CO((ISSION ON
APPOIN$(EN$S, respondent.

CRUZ, J.:
After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the House of
Representatives proportionally apportioned its twelve seats in the
Coission on Appointents aong the several political parties
represented in that cha!er, including the "a#as ng $ansa, the %&%'
"a!an, the (%')nido, the "i!eral %arty, and the *$", in accordance with
Article +,, -ection 18, of the Constitution. %etitioner Raul A. &a.a was
aong those chosen and was listed as a representative of the "i!eral
%arty.
1
/n -epte!er 10, 1988, the "a!an ng &eo#rati#ong %ilipino was
reorgani.ed, resulting in a political realignent in the House of
Representatives. 1wenty four e!ers of the "i!eral %arty forally
resigned fro that party and 2oined the "&%, there!y swelling its nu!er to
139 and correspondingly reducing their forer party to only 17 e!ers.
2
/n the !asis of this developent, the House of Representatives revised its
representation in the Coission on Appointents !y withdrawing the seat
occupied !y the petitioner and giving this to the newly'fored "&%. /n
&ece!er 3, 1988, the cha!er elected a new set of representatives
consisting of the original e!ers e4cept the petitioner and including
therein respondent "uis C. -ingson as the additional e!er fro the
"&%.
3
1he petitioner cae to this Court on 5anuary 16, 1989, to challenge his
reoval fro the Coission on Appointents and the assuption of his
seat !y the respondent. Acting initially on his petition for prohi!ition and
in2unction with preliinary in2unction, we issued a teporary restraining
order that sae day to prevent !oth the petitioner and the respondent fro
serving in the Coission on Appointents.
4
$riefly stated, the contention of the petitioner is that he cannot !e reoved
fro the Coission on Appointents !ecause his election thereto is
peranent under the doctrine announced in Cunanan v. 1an.
)
His clai is
that the reorgani.ation of the House representation in the said !ody is not
!ased on a peranent political realignent !ecause the "&% is not a duly
registered political party and has not yet attained political sta!ility.
7or his part, the respondent argues that the 8uestion raised !y the
petitioner is political in nature and so !eyond the 2urisdiction of this Court.
He also aintains that he has !een iproperly ipleaded, the real party
respondent !eing the House of Representatives which changed its
representation in the Coission on Appointents and reoved the
petitioner. 7inally, he stresses that nowhere in the Constitution is it re8uired
that the political party !e registered to !e entitled to proportional
representation in the Coission on Appointents.
,n addition to the pleadings filed !y the parties, a Coent was su!itted
!y the -olicitor 9eneral as aicus curiae in copliance with an order fro
the Court.
At the core of this controversy is Article +,, -ection 18, of the Constitution
providing as follows:
-ec. 18. 1here shall !e a Coission on Appointents
consisting of the %resident of the -enate, as e4 officio
Chairan, twelve -enators and twelve Me!ers of the House
of Representatives, elected !y each House on the !asis of
proportional representation fro the political parties and parties
or organi.ations registered under the party'list syste
represented therein. 1he Chairan of the Coission shall not
vote, e4cept in case of a tie. 1he Coission shall act on all
appointents su!itted to it within thirty session days of the
Congress fro their su!ission. 1he Coission shall rule !y
a a2ority vote of all the Me!ers.
R*+,- .,r/0 o 01e 2*r,/!,c0,oa+ ,//*e, 3e 1o+! 01a0, co0rar4 0o 01e
re/5o!e0%/ a//er0,o, 01e Co*r0 1a/ 01e com5e0ece 0o ac0 o 01e
ma00er a0 bar. O*r .,!,- ,/ 01a0 31a0 ,/ be.ore */ ,/ o0 a
!,/cre0,oar4 ac0 o. 01e "o*/e o. Re5re/e0a0,6e/ 01a0 ma4 o0 be
re6,e3e! b4 */ beca*/e ,0 ,/ 5o+,0,ca+ , a0*re. 71a0 ,/ ,6o+6e! 1ere
,/ 01e +e-a+,04, o0 01e 3,/!om, o. 01e ac0 o. 01a0 c1amber , remo6,-
01e 5e0,0,oer .rom 01e Comm,//,o o A55o,0me0/. $1a0 ,/ o0 a
5o+,0,ca+ 8*e/0,o beca*/e, a/ C1,e. 9*/0,ce Coce5c,o e:5+a,e! ,
$aa!a 6. C*eco.
6
... 01e 0erm ;5o+,0,ca+ 8*e/0,o; coo0e/, , +e-a+ 5ar+ace,
31a0 ,0 mea/ , or!,ar4 5ar+ace, ame+4, a 8*e/0,o o.
5o+,c4. I o01er 3or!/, ... ,0 re.er/ ;0o 01o/e 8*e/0,o/
31,c1, *!er 01e Co/0,0*0,o, are 0o be !ec,!e! b4 01e
5eo5+e , 01e,r /o6ere,- ca5ac,04, or , re-ar! 0o 31,c1 .*++
!,/cre0,oar4 a*01or,04 1a/ bee !e+e-a0e! 0o 01e
Le-,/+a0*re or e:ec*0,6e brac1 o. 01e Go6erme0.; I0 ,/
cocere! 3,01 ,//*e/ !e5e!e0 *5o 01e 3,/!om, o0
+e-a+,04, o. a 5ar0,c*+ar mea/*re.
,n the aforeentioned case, the Court was as#ed !y the petitioners therein
to annul the election of two e!ers of the -enate ;lectoral 1ri!unal of
that cha!er, on the ground that they had not !een validly noinated. 1he
-enate then consisted of <6 e!ers fro the (acionalista %arty and the
petitioner as the lone e!er of the Citi.ens %arty. -enator "oren.o M.
1anada noinated only hiself as the inority representative in the
1ri!unal, whereupon the a2ority elected -enators Mariano 5. Cuenco. and
7rancisco &elgado, fro its own ran#s, to coplete the nine'an
coposition of the 1ri!unal as provided for in the 1963 Constitution. 1he
petitioner cae to this Court, contending that under Article +,, -ection 11,
of that Charter, the si4 legislative e!ers of the 1ri!unal were to !e
chosen !y the -enate, =three upon noination of the party having the
largest nu!er of votes and three of the party having the second largest
nu!er of votes therein.= As the a2ority party in the -enate, the
(acionalista %arty could noinate only three e!ers and could not also
fill the other two seats pertaining to the inority.
$y way of special and affirative defenses, the respondents contended
inter alia that the su!2ect of the petition was an internal atter that only the
-enate could resolve. 1he Court re2ected this arguent, holding that what
was involved was not the wisdo of the -enate in choosing the
respondents !ut the legality of the choice in light of the re8uireent of the
Constitution. 1he petitioners were 8uestioning the anner of filling the
1ri!unal, not the discretion of the -enate in doing so. 1he Court held that
this was a 2usticia!le and not a political 8uestion, thus:
-uch is not the nature of the 8uestion for deterination in the
present case. Here, we are called upon to decide whether the
election of -enators Cuenco and &elgado !y the -enate, as
e!ers of the -enate ;lectoral 1ri!unal, upon noination !y
-enator %riicias'e!er and spo#esan of the party having
the largest nu!er of votes in the -enate'!ehalf of its
Coittee on Rules, contravenes the constitutional andate
that said e!ers of the -enate ;lectoral 1ri!unal shall !e
chosen =upon noination ... of the party having the second
largest nu!er of votes= in the -enate and hence, is null and
void. 1he -enate is not clothed with =full discretionary authority=
in the choice of e!ers of the -enate ;lectoral 1ri!unal. 1he
e4ercise of its power thereon is su!2ect to constitutional
liitations which are claied to !e andatory in nature. ,t is
clearly within the legitiate province of the 2udicial departent
to pass upon the validity of the proceeding in connection
therewith.
... whether an election of pu!lic officers has !een in accordance
with law is for the 2udiciary. Moreover, where the legislative
departent has !y statute prescri!ed election procedure in a
given situation, the 2udiciary ay deterine whether a particular
election has !een in confority with such statute, and
particularly, whether such statute has !een applied in a way to
deny or transgress on constitutional or statutory rights ...> ?1 0
C.5.-., @69A ephasis suppliedB
,t is, therefore, our opinion that we have, not only 2urisdiction
!ut also the duty, to consider and deterine the principal issue
raised !y the parties herein.=
Although not specifically discussed, the sae disposition was ade in
Cunanan v. 1an as it li#ewise involved the anner or legality of the
organi.ation of the Coission on Appointents, not the wisdo or
discretion of the House in the choice of its representatives.
I 01e ca/e o3 be.ore */, 01e 2*r,/!,c0,oa+ ob2ec0,o become/ e6e
+e// 0eab+e a! !ec,/,6e. $1e rea/o ,/ 01a0, e6e ,. 3e 3ere 0o
a//*me 01a0 01e ,//*e 5re/e0e! be.ore */ 3a/ 5o+,0,ca+ , a0*re, 3e
3o*+! /0,++ o0 be 5rec+*!e! .rom re/o+6,- ,0 *!er 01e e:5a!e!
2*r,/!,c0,o co.erre! *5o */ 01a0 o3 co6er/, , 5ro5er ca/e/, e6e
01e 5o+,0,ca+ 8*e/0,o. Ar0,c+e #II, Sec0,o 1, o. 01e Co/0,0*0,o c+ear+4
5ro6,!e/<
Sec0,o 1. $1e 2*!,c,a+ 5o3er /1a++ be 6e/0e! , oe
S*5reme Co*r0 a! , /*c1 +o3er co*r0/ a/ ma4 be
e/0ab+,/1e! b4 +a3.
9*!,c,a+ 5o3er ,c+*!e/ 01e !*04 o. 01e co*r0/ o. 2*/0,ce 0o
/e00+e ac0*a+ co0ro6er/,e/ ,6o+6,- r,-10/ 31,c1 are
+e-a++4 !ema!ab+e a! e.orceab+e, a! 0o !e0erm,e
31e01er or o0 01ere 1a/ bee a -ra6e ab*/e o. !,/cre0,o
amo*0,- 0o +ac= or e:ce// o. 2*r,/!,c0,o o 01e 5ar0 o.
a4 brac1 or ,/0r*me0a+,04 o. 01e Go6erme0.
$1e re/5o!e0%/ co0e0,o 01a0 1e 1a/ bee ,m5ro5er+4 ,m5+ea!e!
,/ e6e +e// 5er/*a/,6e. 71,+e 1e ma4 be 0ec1,ca++4 correc0 ,
ar-*,- 01a0 ,0 ,/ o0 1e 31o ca*/e! 01e 5e0,0,oer%/ remo6a+, 3e .ee+
01a0 01,/ ob2ec0,o ,/ a+/o o0 a ,/*5erab+e ob/0ac+e 0o 01e
re/o+*0,o o. 01,/ co0ro6er/4. 7e ma4, .or oe 01,-, 0rea0 01,/
5rocee!,- a/ a 5e0,0,o .or 8*o 3arra0o a/ 01e 5e0,0,oer ,/ ac0*a++4
8*e/0,o,- 01e re/5o!e0%/ r,-10 0o /,0 a/ a member o. 01e
Comm,//,o o A55o,0me0/. 'or ao01er, 3e 1a6e 1e+! a/ ear+4 a/
, 01e Emer-ec4 Po3er/ Ca/e/
>
01a0 31ere /er,o*/ co/0,0*0,oa+
8*e/0,o/ are ,6o+6e!, ;01e 0ra/ce!e0a+ ,m5or0ace 0o 01e 5*b+,c
o. 01e/e ca/e/ !ema!/ 01a0 01e4 be /e00+e! 5rom50+4 a! !e.,,0e+4
br*/1,- a/,!e, ,. 3e m*/0, 0ec1,ca+,0,e/ o. 5roce!*re.; 1he sae
policy has since then !een consistently followed !y the Court, as in
9on.ales v. Coission on ;lections,
8
where we held through Chief
5ustice 7ernando:
,n the course of the deli!erations, a serious procedural
o!2ection was raised !y five e!ers of the Court. ,t is their
view that respondent Coission on ;lections not !eing
sought to !e restrained fro perforing any specific act, this
suit cannot !e characteri.ed as other than a ere re8uest for
an advisory opinion. -uch a view, fro the reedial law
standpoint, has uch to recoend it. (onetheless, a a2ority
would affir the original stand that under the circustances, it
could still rightfully !e treated as a petition for prohi!ition.
1he language of 2ustice "aurel fits the case: =All await the
decision of this Court on the constitutional 8uestion.
Considering, therefore, the iportance which the instant case
has assued and to prevent ultiplicity of suits, strong reasons
of pu!lic policy deand that CitsD constitutionality ... !e now
resolved.> ,t ay li#ewise !e added that the e4ceptional
character of the situation that confronts us, the paraount
pu!lic interest, and the undenia!le necessity for ruling, the
national elections !eing !arely si4 onths away, reinforce our
stand. ,t would appear undenia!le, therefore, that !efore us is
an appropriate invocation of our 2urisdiction to prevent the
enforceent of an alleged unconstitutional statute. Ee are left
with no choice thenA we ust act on the atter.
Coing now to the ore crucial 8uestion, the Court notes that !oth the
petitioner and the respondent are invo#ing the case of Cunanan v. 1an to
support their respective positions. ,t is !est, therefore, to a#e a 8uic#
review of that case for a proper disposition of this one.
,n the election for the House of Representatives held in 1901, 7< seats
were won !y the (acionalista %arty, <9 !y the "i!eral %arty and 1 !y an
independent. Accordingly, the representation of the cha!er in the
Coission on Appointents was apportioned to 8 e!ers fro the
(acionalista %arty and @ fro the "i!eral %arty. -u!se8uently, <3 e!ers
of the (acionalista %arty, professing discontent over the House leadership,
ade coon cause with the "i!eral %arty and fored what was called
the Allied Ma2ority to install a new -pea#er and reorgani.e the cha!er.
,ncluded in this reorgani.ation was the House representation in the
Coission on appointents where three of the (acionalista
congressen originally chosen were displaced !y three of their party
colleagues who had 2oined the Allied Ma2ority.
%etitioner Carlos Cunanan>s ad interi appointent as &eputy
Adinistrator of the Reforestration Adinistration was re2ected !y the
Coission on Appointents as thus reorgani.ed and respondent 5orge
1an, 5r. was thereafter designated in his place. Cunanan then cae to this
Court, contending that the re2ection of his appointent was null and void
!ecause the Coission itself was invalidly constituted.
1he Court agreed. ,t noted that the Allied Ma2ority was a erely teporary
co!ination as the (acionalista defectors had not disaffiliated fro their
party and peranently 2oined the new political group. /fficially, they were
still e!ers of the (acionalista %arty. 1he reorgani.ation of the
Coission on Appointents was invalid !ecause it was not !ased on the
proportional representation of the political parties in the House of
Representatives as re8uired !y the Constitution. 1he Court held:
... ,n other words, a shifting of votes at a given tie, even if du
to arrangeents of a ore or less teporary nature, li#e the
one that has led to the foration of the so'called =Allied
Ma2ority,= does not suffice to authori.e a reorgani.ation of the
e!ership of the Coission for said House. /therwise the
Coission on Appointents ay have to !e reorgani.ed as
often as votes shift fro one side to another in the House. 1he
fraers of our Constitution could not have intended to thus
place a constitutional organ, li#e the Coission on
Appointents, at the ercy of each House of Congress.
1he petitioner vigorously argues that the "&% is not the peranent political
party conteplated in the Constitution !ecause it has not !een registered
in accordance with Article ,F'$, -ection <?3B, in relation to the other
provisions of the Constitution. He stresses that the so'called party has not
yet achieved sta!ility and suggests it ight !e no different fro several
other political groups that have died =a'!ornin>,= li#e the ",(A, or have
su!se8uently floundered, li#e the )(,&/.
1he respondent also cites Cunanan !ut fro a different viewpoint.
According to hi, that case e4pressly allows reorgani.ation at any tie to
reflect changes in the political alignents in Congress, provided only that
such changes are peranent. 1he creation of the "&% constituting the !ul#
of the forer %&%'"a!an and to which no less than <@ "i!eral
congressen had transferred was a peranent change. 1hat change fully
2ustified his designation to the Coission on Appointents after the
reduction of the "% representation therein. 1hus, the Court held:
)pon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effect
that =there shall !e a Coission on Appointents consisting
of twelve ?1<B -enators and twelve ?1<B e!ers of the House
of Representatives elected !y each House, respectively, on the
!asis of proportional R;%R;-;(1A1,/( /7 1H; %/",1,CA"
%AR1,;- 1H;R;,(,= necessarily connotes the authority of
each House of Congress to see to it that this re8uireent is
duly coplied with. As a conse8uence, it ay ta#e appropriate
easures, not only upon the initial organi.ation of the
Coission, !ut also, su!se8uently thereto. ,f !y reason of
successful election protests against e!ers of a House, or of
their e4pulsion fro the political party to which they !elonged
andGor of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in
the representation of the political parties in the House is
aterially changed, the House is clothed with authority to
declare vacant the necessary nu!er of seats in the
Coission on Appointents held !y e!ers of said House
!elonging to the political party adversely affected !y the change
and then fill said vacancies in confority with the Constitution.
,n the course of the spirited de!ate on this atter !etween the petitioner
and the respondent ?who was supported !y the -olicitor 9eneralB an
iportant developent has supervened to considera!ly siplify the
present controversy. 1he petitioner, to repeat, !ases his arguent heavily
on the non'registration of the "&% which, he clais has not provided the
peranent political realignent to 2ustify the 8uestioned reorgani.ation. As
he insists:
?cB Assuing that the so'called new coalesced
a2ority is actually the "&% itself, then the proposed
reorgani.ation is li#ewise illegal and ineffectual,
!ecause the "&%, not !eing a duly registered
political party, is not entitled to the =rights and
privileges granted !y law to political parties> ?-ee.
10H, $% (o. 881B, and therefore cannot legally
clai the right to !e considered in deterining the
re8uired proportional representation of political
parties in the House of Representatives.
9
444 444 444
... the clear constitutional intent !ehind -ection 18, Article +,, of
the 1987 Constitution, is to give the right of representation in
the Coission on Appointent only to political parties who
are duly registered with the Coelec.
1?
/n (ove!er <6, 1989, however, that arguent !ooeranged against the
petitioner. /n that date, the Coission on ;lections in an en !anc
resolution affired the resolution of its 7irst &ivision dated August <8,
1989, granting the petition of the "&% for registration as a political
party.
11
1his has ta#en the wind out of the sails of the petitioner, so to
spea#, and he ust now lip to shore as !est he can.
1he petitioner>s contention that, even if registered, the party ust still pass
the test of tie to prove its peranence is not accepta!le. )nder this
theory, a registered party o!taining the a2ority of the seats in the House of
Representatives ?or the -enateB would still not !e entitled to representation
in the Coission on Appointents as long as it was organi.ed only
recently and has not yet =aged.= 1he "i!eral %arty itself would fall in such a
category. 1hat party was created in &ece!er 19@3 !y a faction of the
(acionalista %arty that seceded therefro to support Manuel A. Ro4as>s
!id for the %residency of the %hilippines in the election held on April <6,
19@0.
12
1he "i!eral %arty won. At that tie it was only four onths old. Iet
no 8uestion was raised as to its right to !e represented in the Coission
on Appointents and in the ;lectoral 1ri!unals !y virtue of its status as the
a2ority party in !oth cha!ers of the Congress.
1he "&% has !een in e4istence for ore than one year now. ,t now has 137
e!ers in the House of Representatives and 0 e!ers in the -enate.
,ts titular head is no less than the %resident of the %hilippines and its
%resident is -enator (eptali A. 9on.ales, who too# over recently fro
-pea#er Raon +. Mitra. ,t is true that there have !een, and there still are,
soe internal disagreeents aong its e!ers, !ut these are to !e
e4pected in any political organi.ation, especially if it is deocratic in
structure. ,n fact even the onolithic Counist %arty in a nu!er of
socialist states has undergone siilar dissension, and even upheavals. $ut
it surely cannot !e considered still teporary !ecause of such discord.
,f the petitioner>s arguent were to !e pursued, the 137 e!ers of the
"&% in the House of Representatives would have to !e denied
representation in the Coission on Appointents and, for that atter,
also the ;lectoral 1ri!unal. $y the sae to#en, the *$", which the
petitioner says is now =history only,= should also !e written off. 1he
independents also cannot !e represented !ecause they !elong to no
political party. 1hat would virtually leave the "i!eral %arty only with all of its
seventeen e!ers to clai all the twelve seats of the House of
Representatives in the Coission on Appointents and the si4 legislative
seats in the House ;lectoral 1ri!unal.
,t is noteworthy that when with @1 e!ers the "i!eral %arty was alloted
two of the seats in the Coission on Appointents, it did not e4press any
o!2ection.
13
,nconsistently, the petitioner is now opposed to the withdrawal
fro it of one seat although its original nu!er has !een cut !y ore than
half.
As for the other condition suggested !y the petitioner, to wit, that the party
ust survive in a general congressional election, the "&% has dou!tless
also passed that test, if only vicariously. ,t ay even !e said that as it now
coands the !iggest following in the House of Representatives, the party
has not only survived !ut in fact prevailed. At any rate, that test was never
laid down in Cunanan.
$o /*mmar,@e, 01e, 3e 1o+!, , 6,e3 o. 01e .ore-o,- co/,!era0,o/,
01a0 01e ,//*e 5re/e0e! 0o */ ,/ 2*/0,c,ab+e ra01er 5o+,0,ca+, ,6o+6,-
a/ ,0 !oe/ 01e +e-a+,04 a! o0 01e 3,/!om o. 01e ac0 com5+a,e! o., or
01e maer o. .,++,- 01e Comm,//,o o A55o,0me0/ a/ 5re/cr,be!
b4 01e Co/0,0*0,o. E6e ,. 01e 8*e/0,o 3ere 5o+,0,ca+ , a0*re, ,0
3o*+! /0,++ come 3,01, o*r 5o3er/ o. re6,e3 *!er 01e e:5a!e!
2*r,/!,c0,o co.erre! *5o */ b4 Ar0,c+e #III, Sec0,o 1, o. 01e
Co/0,0*0,o, 31,c1 ,c+*!e/ 01e a*01or,04 0o !e0erm,e 31e01er -ra6e
ab*/e o. !,/cre0,o amo*0,- 0o e:ce// or +ac= o. 2*r,/!,c0,o 1a/
bee comm,00e! b4 a4 brac1 or ,/0r*me0a+,04 o. 01e -o6erme0.
A/ .or 01e a++e-e! 0ec1,ca+ .+a3 , 01e !e/,-a0,o o. 01e 5ar04
re/5o!e0, a//*m,- 01e e:,/0ece o. /*c1 a !e.ec0, 01e /ame ma4
be br*/1e! a/,!e, co.ormab+4 0o e:,/0,- !oc0r,e, /o 01a0 01e
,m5or0a0 co/0,0*0,oa+ ,//*e ra,/e! ma4 be a!!re//e!. La/0+4, 3e
re/o+6e 01a0 ,//*e , .a6or o. 01e a*01or,04 o. 01e "o*/e o.
Re5re/e0a0,6e/ 0o c1a-e ,0/ re5re/e0a0,o , 01e Comm,//,o o
A55o,0me0/ 0o re.+ec0 a0 a4 0,me 01e c1a-e/ 01a0 ma4 0ra/5,re ,
01e 5o+,0,ca+ a+,-me0/ o. ,0/ member/1,5. I0 ,/ *!er/0oo! 01a0 /*c1
c1a-e/ m*/0 be 5ermae0 a! !o o0 ,c+*!e 01e 0em5orar4
a++,ace/ or .ac0,oa+ !,6,/,o/ o0 ,6o+6,- /e6erace o. 5o+,0,ca+
+o4a+0,e/ or .orma+ !,/a..,+,a0,o a! 5ermae0 /1,.0/ o. a++e-,ace
.rom oe 5o+,0,ca+ 5ar04 0o ao01er.
1he Court would have preferred not to intervene in this atter, leaving it to
!e settled !y the House of Representatives or the Coission on
Appointents as the !odies directly involved. $ut as our 2urisdiction has
!een invo#ed and, ore iportantly, !ecause a constitutional staleate
had to !e resolved, there was no alternative for us e4cept to act, and to act
decisively. ,n doing so, of course, we are not iposing our will upon the
said agencies, or su!stituting our discretion for theirs, !ut erely
discharging our sworn responsi!ility to interpret and apply the Constitution.
1hat is a duty we do not evade, lest we ourselves !etray our oath.
EH;R;7/R;, the petition is &,-M,--;&. 1he teporary restraining order
dated 5anuary 16, 1989, is ",71;&. 1he Court holds that the respondent
has !een validly elected as a e!er of the Coission on Appointents
and is entitled to assue his seat in that !ody pursuant to Article +,,
-ection 18, of the Constitution. (o pronounceent as to costs.
-/ /R&;R;&.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano,
Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cows, Grio-Auino, Medialdea and !e"alado,
JJ., concur.
#ar$iento, J., too% no &art.

You might also like