You are on page 1of 2

Article VI, Section 18

Daza v. Singson
G. R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989
This is a petition challenging the removal of Raul A. Daza (petitioner) from the Commission on
Appointments and the assumption of his seat by Luis C. Singson (respondent).
Facts:

The HoR proportionally apportioned its 12 seats in the Commission of Appointments (CoA)
among several political parties, one of them was the LIBERAL PARTY (LP)
Petitioner Raul A. Daza was listed as a representative of the LP
September 16, 1988: The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized
o 24 members of the LP formally resigned to join the LDP
o LDPs members increases to 159
o LPs members are reduced to 17
Since the CoA are supposed to be proportionally represented, the HoR revised its representation
in the CoA
o Dazas seat was withdrawn and was given to the newly-formed LDP
o December 5, 1988: Chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the
original members except Daza and including therein Singson as the additional member
from the LDP
In short, it seems like Daza was just really replaced by Singson
January 13, 1989: Petitioner came to the Court to challenge his removal from CoA and the
assumption of his seat by the respondent, his petition was for prohibition and injunction with
preliminary injunction
The court issued a temporary restraining order, preventing both parties from serving in the CoA
Both petitioner and respondent made use of the CUNANAN V. TAN CASE:
o 1961 HoR elections: Apportioned seats for the CoA
8 for Nacionalista Party
4 for Liberal Party
o 25 members (out of 72) of the Ncaionalista Party, discontent over the house leadership,
made common cause with the Liberal Party and formed the ALLIED MAJORITY to
install a new Speaker and reorganize the chamber
o 3 Nacionalista Congressmen were replaced by 3 of their party colleagues who had joined
the Allied Majority
o Cunanans appointment as Administrator of the Reforestation Administration was
rejected by the CoA because of the reorganization and Tan was designated in his place
o Cunanan came to the Court saying that his rejection was null and void because the
Commission itself was invalidly constituted
o Court agreed with Cunanan
Allied Majority was temporary; the Nacionalista defectors had not disaffiliated
from their party. THEY WERE STILL OFFICIAL MEMBERS OF THE
NACIONALISTA PARTY
if they were allowed, the CoA will have to be reorganized every time there is a
shift in votes
Petitioner made use of the Cunanan v. Tan case, saying that the LDP is not a permanent
political party
o Because it is not registered in accordance with Article IX-B, Section 2(5)
o Has not yet attained political stability (they have not been in existence long enough).

Respondent made use of the Cunanan v. Tan case, saying the case expressly allows
reorganization at ANY TIME to reflect changes in the political alignments, provided that such
changes ARE PERMANENT
o He argues that the creation of LDP, constituting the bulk of the former PDP-Laban and
the former 24 Liberal congressmen was a permanent change (not sure why though,
wasnt explained in the original case either)
Petitioner relied heavily on his argument that the LDP was not permanent because it was not
registered
November 23, 1989: the CoA in an en banc resolution affirmed the resolution of its 1st Division
(August 28, 1989) GRANTING THE PETITION OF THE LDP FOR REGISTRATION AS
A POLITICAL PARTY
Petitioner still argued that they have not been in existence long enough to prove themselves

Issues:
1.) Whether or not the case is within the Courts Jurisdiction.
2.) Whether or not the change in political representation is permanent enough (enough = the time
element in the argument) as to validly change the composition of the Commission on Appointments.
Held:
1.) Court has competence to act on the matter at bar. This is because what is involved here is the
LEGALITY, not the wisdom, of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from the CoA. This is
not a political question

in the Tanada v. Case, a political question refers to those questions which under the Constitution,
are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity (dependent upon WISDOM, not
legality)

2.) Court finds that the HoR has the authority to change its representation in the CoA when there is a
change in the political realignment but the changes must be permanent and do not include temporary
alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disqualification and
permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another.
The Court mentioned that if they followed Dazas theory that a party must be aged enough, The Liberal
Party itself would fall in such category

1946 Elections: The Liberal Party won but they were only 4 months old at the time

The theory would also result in the Liberal Party occupying all the seats in both the CoA and even the
House Electoral Tribunal, since theyre the only party that qualifies under such theory.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order is LIFTED. The Court holds
that the respondent has been validly elected as a member of the CoA and is entitled to assume his seat in
that body pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The TRO dated Jan. 3, 1989 is hereby lifted. The Court holds
that the respondent has been validly elected as a member of the CA and is entitled to assume his seat in
that body pursuant to Art 6 Sec 18 of the Constitution. No pronouncement as to costs.