Bondoc v.

Pineda 1991
Petitioners: Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc
Respondents: Representatives Marciano M. Pineda, Magdaleno M. Palacol, Col. Juanityo G.
Camasura, Jr.
Electoral Tribunals
SUMMARY: Bondoc is seeking to annul the decision of the HOR to rescind the nomination of
Rep. Camasura and ordering Camasura to continue to discharge his functions of the HRET. The
court granted the petition because the expulsion of Camasura from the HRET was not for a
lawful and valid cause and violates the constitutional mandate (sec. 17, art 6) which created the
House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole judge of electoral contests.
FACTS:

Marciano M. Pineda and Emigdio A. Bondoc were rival candidates for the position of
Representative of the Fourth District of the Pampanga
o Marciano Pineda = 31,700 votes; Emigdio Bondoc = 28,400 votes
o Pineda was proclaimed as winner which made Bondoc file a protest (HRET Case
No. 25) in the HRET, which is composed of 3 Justices of the SC and 6 members
of the HOR chosen on the basis of proportional representation from political
parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
o SC Justices: Amerurfina M. Herrera, Isagani Cruz, Florentino P. Feliciano
o 5/6 HOR members in the HRET came from LDP: Honorato Y. Aquino, David
Ponce de Leon, Simeon E. Garcia, Juanito Camasura, Jose Calingasan,
o 1/6: Antonio Cerilles
October 1990: HRET reached a decision that Bondoc won over Pineda by a margin of
23 votes
o LDP members in HRET insisted on a re-appreciation and recount of the ballots
thereby delaying the finalization for at least 4 months
o Reexamination resulted in increasing Bondocs lead to 107 votes
o Congressman Camasura voted with the SC Justices and Cerilles to proclaim
Bondoc as winner
March 4, 1991: Camasura told Congressman Jose. S Cojuangco, LDP Secretary
General, the final tally and that he voted for Bondoc
March 13, 1991: on the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, Congressman
Cojuangco told Camasura that LDP is expelling him because he betrayed the party
when he allegedly helped to organize the Partido Pilipino and invited members to join
said political party
LDP withdrew its nomination of Camasura to the HRET
o Bondoc filed this petition to prevent the withdrawal of the nomination
o Respondent Pineda argues that Congress has the sole authority to nominate and
elect its members in the HRET
o It also has the sole power to remove any of them whenever the ratio in the
representation of the political parties in the House or Senate is materially

changed on account of death, incapacity, removal or expulsion from the political

party

ISSUE/S:

WoN the HOR is empowered by the Constitution to interfere with the disposition of an
election contest in the HRET through the ruse of reorganizing the representation in the
tribunal of the majority party
o NO. The House has the exclusive jurisdiction as a judge of contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of the HOR (sec 17, art 6)
o The tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court; should be an
independent and impartial tribunal, devoid of partisan consideration
o Thus, to be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the HRET must be
INDEPENDENT
WoN the Resolution of the HOR violates the independence of the HRET
o YES. The resolution of the HOR removing Camasura from the HRET for
disloyalty to LDP is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative HRET.
o To let the interference of the HOR would reduce the tribunal to a mere tool for the
aggrandizement of the party in power (LDP).
WoN disloyalty to a party a valid cause for termination of membership in the HRET
o NO. HRET members must be non-partisan, thus disloyalty to party and breach of
party discipline are not valid grounds
o Camasura did not switch to any other party, so how is he disloyal!!!!
o In expelling Camasura, the HOR committed a grave abuse of discretion, an
injustice, and a violation of the Constitution. The resolution of expulsion against
Camasura, therefore, is null and void
WoN the expulsion of Camasura violates his right to security of tenure
o YES. Members in the HRET are entitled to security of tenure just as the judiciary
enjoys security of tenure under sec. 2, art 8 of the Constitution
o Membership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause:
expiration of the members congressional term of office, his death, permanent
disability, resignation from the political party, formal affiliation with another party,
or removal for other valid cause

Dissent: Padilla, J.

Majority position is violative of separation of powers

A withdrawal of the nomination of a member of the Tribunal where such withdrawal will
maintain the proportional representation of the political parties must be recognized, no
matter how politically motivated it might be
Constitutional law is concerned with power, not with policy, wisdom, or expediency
Judiciary cannot question legislative act done within its constitutional authority

Judiciary has no power to review even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the
legislative department, taken in the exercise of power committed exclusively to it
by the Constitution
People of the nation should be the judge when they cast their ballots, not
judiciary

NOTES:

Optional
Notes on the topic/provision that may be relevant to the understanding of the issue/case.