G.R. No.
86344 December 21, 1989 not a duly registered political party and has not yet
REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner,
vs.
REP. LUIS C. SINGSON and HON. RAOUL V.
VICTORINO IN THE LATTER'S CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS, respondent.
CRUZ, J.:
After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the
House of Representatives proportionally apportioned
its twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments
among the several political parties represented in that
chamber, including the Lakas ng Bansa, the PDP-
Laban, the NP-Unido, the Liberal Party, and the KBL,
in accordance with Article VI, Section 18, of the
Constitution. Petitioner Raul A. Daza was among
those chosen and was listed as a representative of
the Liberal Party. 1
On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino was reorganized, resulting in
a political realignment in the House of
Representatives. Twenty four members of the Liberal
Party formally resigned from that party and joined the
LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 and
correspondingly reducing their former party to only 17
members. 2
On the basis of this development, the House of
Representatives revised its representation in the
Commission on Appointments by withdrawing the
seat occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the
newly-formed LDP. On December 5, 1988, the
chamber elected a new set of representatives
consisting of the original members except the
petitioner and including therein respondent Luis C.
Singson as the additional member from the LDP. 3
The petitioner came to this Court on January 13,
1989, to challenge his removal from the Commission
on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by
the respondent. Acting initially on his petition for
prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction,
we issued a temporary restraining order that same
day to prevent both the petitioner and the respondent
from serving in the Commission on Appointments.4
Briefly stated, the contention of the petitioner is that
he cannot be removed from the Commission on
Appointments because his election thereto is
permanent under the doctrine announced in Cunanan
v. Tan. 5 His claim is that the reorganization of the
House representation in the said body is not based on
a permanent political realignment because the LDP is
attained political stability.
For his part, the respondent argues that the question
raised by the petitioner is political in nature and so
beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. He also
maintains that he has been improperly impleaded, the
real party respondent being the House of
Representatives which changed its representation in
the Commission on Appointments and removed the
petitioner. Finally, he stresses that nowhere in the
Constitution is it required that the political party be
registered to be entitled to proportional representation
in the Commission on Appointments.
In addition to the pleadings filed by the parties, a
Comment was submitted by the Solicitor General as
amicus curiae in compliance with an order from the
Court.
At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section
18, of the Constitution providing as follows:
Sec. 18. There shall be a
Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the
Senate, as ex officio Chairman,
twelve Senators and twelve
Members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each
House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political
parties and parties or organizations
registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The
Chairman of the Commission shall
not vote, except in case of a tie.
The Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within
thirty session days of the Congress
from their submission. The
Commission shall rule by a majority
vote of all the Members.
Ruling first on the jurisdictional issue, we hold that,
contrary to the respondent's assertion, the Court has
the competence to act on the matter at bar. Our
finding is that what is before us is not a discretionary
act of the House of Representatives that may not be
reviewed by us because it is political in nature. What
is involved here is the legality, not the wisdom, of the
act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from
the Commission on Appointments. That is not a
political question because, as Chief Justice
Concepcion explained in Tanada v. Cuenco. 6
... the term "political question"
connotes, in legal parlance, what it
means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. In
 other words, ... it refers "to those
questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by
the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been
delegated to the Legislature or
executive branch of the
Government." It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom,
not legality, of a particular measure.
In the aforementioned case, the Court was asked by
the petitioners therein to annul the election of two
members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal of that
chamber, on the ground that they had not been validly
nominated. The Senate then consisted of 23
members from the Nacionalista Party and the
petitioner as the lone member of the Citizens Party.
Senator Lorenzo M. Tanada nominated only himself
as the minority representative in the Tribunal,
whereupon the majority elected Senators Mariano J.
Cuenco. and Francisco Delgado, from its own ranks,
to complete the nine-man composition of the Tribunal
as provided for in the 1935 Constitution. The
petitioner came to this Court, contending that under
Article VI, Section 11, of that Charter, the six
legislative members of the Tribunal were to be chosen
by the Senate, "three upon nomination of the party
having the largest number of votes and three of the
party having the second largest number of votes
therein." As the majority party in the Senate, the
Nacionalista Party could nominate only three
members and could not also fill the other two seats
pertaining to the minority.
By way of special and affirmative defenses, the
respondents contended inter alia that the subject of
the petition was an internal matter that only the
Senate could resolve. The Court rejected this
argument, holding that what was involved was not the
wisdom of the Senate in choosing the respondents
but the legality of the choice in light of the requirement
of the Constitution. The petitioners were questioning
the manner of filling the Tribunal, not the discretion of
the Senate in doing so. The Court held that this was a
justiciable and not a political question, thus:
Such is not the nature of the
question for determination in the
present case. Here, we are called
upon to decide whether the election
of Senators Cuenco and Delgado
by the Senate, as members of the
Senate Electoral Tribunal, upon
nomination by Senator Primicias-
member and spokesman of the
party having the largest number of
votes in the Senate-behalf of its
Committee on Rules, contravenes
the constitutional mandate that said
members of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal shall be chosen "upon
nomination ... of the party having
the second largest number of votes"
in the Senate and hence, is null and
void. The Senate is not clothed with
"full discretionary authority" in the
choice of members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal. The exercise of
its power thereon is subject to
constitutional limitations which are
claimed to be mandatory in nature.
It is clearly within the legitimate
province of the judicial department
to pass upon the validity of the
proceeding in connection therewith.
... whether an election of public
officers has been in accordance
with law is for the judiciary.
Moreover, where the legislative
department has by statute
prescribed election procedure in a
given situation, the judiciary may
determine whether a particular
election has been in conformity with
such statute, and particularly,
whether such statute has been
applied in a way to deny or
transgress on constitutional or
statutory rights ...' (1 6 C.J.S., 439;
emphasis supplied)
It is, therefore, our opinion that we
have, not only jurisdiction but also
the duty, to consider and determine
the principal issue raised by the
parties herein."
Although not specifically discussed, the same
disposition was made in Cunanan v. Tan as it likewise
involved the manner or legality of the organization of
the Commission on Appointments, not the wisdom or
discretion of the House in the choice of its
representatives.
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection
becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason
is that, even if we were to assume that the issue
presented before us was political in nature, we would
still not be precluded from resolving it under the
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now
covers, in proper cases, even the political question.
Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly
provides:
Section 1. The judicial power shall
be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
 Judicial power includes 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 respondent's contention that he has been
improperly impleaded is even less persuasive. While
he may be technically correct in arguing that it is not
he who caused the petitioner's removal, we feel that
this objection is also not an insuperable obstacle to
the resolution of this controversy. We may, for one
thing, treat this proceeding as a petition for quo
warranto as the petitioner is actually questioning the
respondent's right to sit as a member of the
Commission on Appointments. For another, we have
held as early as in the Emergency Powers
Cases 7 that where serious constitutional questions
are involved, "the transcendental importance to the
public of these cases demands that they be settled
promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must,
technicalities of procedure." The same policy has
since then been consistently followed by the Court, as
in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, 8 where we
held through Chief Justice Fernando:
In the course of the deliberations, a
serious procedural objection was
raised by five members of the
Court. It is their view that
respondent Commission on
Elections not being sought to be
restrained from performing any
specific act, this suit cannot be
characterized as other than a mere
request for an advisory opinion.
Such a view, from the remedial law
standpoint, has much to
recommend it. Nonetheless, a
majority would affirm the original
stand that under the circumstances,
it could still rightfully be treated as a
petition for prohibition.
The language of justice Laurel fits
the case: "All await the decision of
this Court on the constitutional
question. Considering, therefore,
the importance which the instant
case has assumed and to prevent
multiplicity of suits, strong reasons
of public policy demand that [its]
constitutionality ... be now resolved.'
It may likewise be added that the
exceptional character of the
situation that confronts us, the
paramount public interest, and the
undeniable necessity for ruling, the
national elections being barely six
months away, reinforce our stand. It
would appear undeniable,
therefore, that before us is an
appropriate invocation of our
jurisdiction to prevent the
enforcement of an alleged
unconstitutional statute. We are left
with no choice then; we must act on
the matter.
Coming now to the more crucial question, the Court
notes that both the petitioner and the respondent are
invoking the case of Cunanan v. Tan to support their
respective positions. It is best, therefore, to make a
quick review of that case for a proper disposition of
this one.
In the election for the House of Representatives held
in 1961, 72 seats were won by the Nacionalista Party,
29 by the Liberal Party and 1 by an independent.
Accordingly, the representation of the chamber in the
Commission on Appointments was apportioned to 8
members from the Nacionalista Party and 4 from the
Liberal Party. Subsequently, 25 members of the
Nacionalista Party, professing discontent over the
House leadership, made common cause with the
Liberal Party and formed what was called the Allied
Majority to install a new Speaker and reorganize the
chamber. Included in this reorganization was the
House representation in the Commission on
appointments where three of the Nacionalista
congressmen originally chosen were displaced by
three of their party colleagues who had joined the
Allied Majority.
Petitioner Carlos Cunanan's ad interim appointment
as Deputy Administrator of the Reforestration
Administration was rejected by the Commission on
Appointments as thus reorganized and respondent
Jorge Tan, Jr. was thereafter designated in his place.
Cunanan then came to this Court, contending that the
rejection of his appointment was null and void
because the Commission itself was invalidly
constituted.
The Court agreed. It noted that the Allied Majority was
a merely temporary combination as the Nacionalista
defectors had not disaffiliated from their party and
permanently joined the new political group. Officially,
they were still members of the Nacionalista Party. The
reorganization of the Commission on Appointments
was invalid because it was not based on the
proportional representation of the political parties in
the House of Representatives as required by the
Constitution. The Court held:
 ... In other words, a shifting of votes Commission, but also,
at a given time, even if du to subsequently thereto. If by reason
arrangements of a more or less of successful election protests
temporary nature, like the one that against members of a House, or of
has led to the formation of the so- their expulsion from the political
called "Allied Majority," does not party to which they belonged and/or
suffice to authorize a reorganization of their affiliation with another
of the membership of the political party, the ratio in the
Commission for said House. representation of the political
Otherwise the Commission on parties in the House is materially
Appointments may have to be changed, the House is clothed with
reorganized as often as votes shift authority to declare vacant the
from one side to another in the necessary number of seats in the
House. The framers of our Commission on Appointments held
Constitution could not have by members of said House
intended to thus place a belonging to the political party
constitutional organ, like the adversely affected by the change
Commission on Appointments, at and then fill said vacancies in
the mercy of each House of conformity with the Constitution.
Congress.
In the course of the spirited debate on this matter
The petitioner vigorously argues that the LDP is not between the petitioner and the respondent (who was
the permanent political party contemplated in the supported by the Solicitor General) an important
Constitution because it has not been registered in development has supervened to considerably simplify
accordance with Article IX-B, Section 2(5), in relation the present controversy. The petitioner, to repeat,
to the other provisions of the Constitution. He bases his argument heavily on the non-registration of
stresses that the so-called party has not yet achieved the LDP which, he claims has not provided the
stability and suggests it might be no different from permanent political realignment to justify the
several other political groups that have died "a- questioned reorganization. As he insists:
bornin'," like the LINA, or have subsequently
floundered, like the UNIDO. (c) Assuming that
the so-called new
The respondent also cites Cunanan but from a coalesced
different viewpoint. According to him, that case majority is
expressly allows reorganization at any time to reflect actually the LDP
changes in the political alignments in Congress, itself, then the
provided only that such changes are permanent. The proposed
creation of the LDP constituting the bulk of the former reorganization is
PDP-Laban and to which no less than 24 Liberal likewise illegal
congressmen had transferred was a permanent and ineffectual,
change. That change fully justified his designation to because the LDP,
the Commission on Appointments after the reduction not being a duly
of the LP representation therein. Thus, the Court held: registered
political party, is
Upon the other hand, the not entitled to the
constitutional provision to the effect "rights and
that "there shall be a Commission privileges granted
on Appointments consisting of by law to political
twelve (12) Senators and twelve parties' (See.
(12) members of the House of 160, BP No. 881),
Representatives elected by each and therefore
House, respectively, on the basis of cannot legally
proportional REPRESENTATION claim the right to
OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES be considered in
THEREIN," necessarily connotes determining the
the authority of each House of required
Congress to see to it that this proportional
requirement is duly complied with. representation of
As a consequence, it may take political parties in
appropriate measures, not only the House of
upon the initial organization of the
 Representatives.
9
xxx xxx xxx
... the clear constitutional intent
behind Section 18, Article VI, of the
1987 Constitution, is to give the
right of representation in the
Commission on Appointment only
to political parties who are duly
registered with the Comelec. 10
On November 23, 1989, however, that argument
boomeranged against the petitioner. On that date, the
Commission on Elections in an en banc resolution
affirmed the resolution of its First Division dated
August 28, 1989, granting the petition of the LDP for
registration as a political party. 11 This has taken the
wind out of the sails of the petitioner, so to speak, and
he must now limp to shore as best he can.
The petitioner's contention that, even if registered, the
party must still pass the test of time to prove its
permanence is not acceptable. Under this theory, a
registered party obtaining the majority of the seats in
the House of Representatives (or the Senate) would
still not be entitled to representation in the
Commission on Appointments as long as it was
organized only recently and has not yet "aged." The
Liberal Party itself would fall in such a category. That
party was created in December 1945 by a faction of
the Nacionalista Party that seceded therefrom to
support Manuel A. Roxas's bid for the Presidency of
the Philippines in the election held on April 23,
1946. 12 The Liberal Party won. At that time it was
only four months old. Yet no question was raised as
to its right to be represented in the Commission on
Appointments and in the Electoral Tribunals by virtue
of its status as the majority party in both chambers of
the Congress.
The LDP has been in existence for more than one
year now. It now has 157 members in the House of
Representatives and 6 members in the Senate. Its
titular head is no less than the President of the
Philippines and its President is Senator Neptali A.
Gonzales, who took over recently from Speaker
Ramon V. Mitra. It is true that there have been, and
there still are, some internal disagreements among its
members, but these are to be expected in any political
organization, especially if it is democratic in structure.
In fact even the monolithic Communist Party in a
number of socialist states has undergone similar
dissension, and even upheavals. But it surely cannot
be considered still temporary because of such
discord.
If the petitioner's argument were to be pursued, the
157 members of the LDP in the House of
Representatives would have to be denied
representation in the Commission on Appointments
and, for that matter, also the Electoral Tribunal. By the
same token, the KBL, which the petitioner says is now
"history only," should also be written off. The
independents also cannot be represented because
they belong to no political party. That would virtually
leave the Liberal Party only with all of its seventeen
members to claim all the twelve seats of the House of
Representatives in the Commission on Appointments
and the six legislative seats in the House Electoral
Tribunal.
It is noteworthy that when with 41 members the
Liberal Party was alloted two of the seats in the
Commission on Appointments, it did not express any
objection. 13 Inconsistently, the petitioner is now
opposed to the withdrawal from it of one seat
although its original number has been cut by more
than half.
As for the other condition suggested by the petitioner,
to wit, that the party must survive in a general
congressional election, the LDP has doubtless also
passed that test, if only vicariously. It may even be
said that as it now commands the biggest following in
the House of Representatives, the party has not only
survived but in fact prevailed. At any rate, that test
was never laid down in Cunanan.
To summarize, then, we hold, in view of the foregoing
considerations, that the issue presented to us is
justiciable rather political, involving as it does the
legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of,
or the manner of filling the Commission on
Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even
if the question were political in nature, it would still
come within our powers of review under the expanded
jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section
1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to
determine whether grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been
committed by any branch or instrumentality of the
government. As for the alleged technical flaw in the
designation of the party respondent, assuming the
existence of such a defect, the same may be brushed
aside, conformably to existing doctrine, so that the
important constitutional issue raised may be
addressed. Lastly, we resolve that issue in favor of
the authority of the House of Representatives to
change its representation in the Commission on
Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that
may transpire in the political alignments of its
membership. It is understood that such changes must
be permanent and do not include the temporary
alliances or factional divisions not involving severance
of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and
permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party
to another.
The Court would have preferred not to intervene in
this matter, leaving it to be settled by the House of
Representatives or the Commission on Appointments
as the bodies directly involved. But as our jurisdiction
has been invoked and, more importantly, because a
constitutional stalemate had to be resolved, there was
no alternative for us except to act, and to act
decisively. In doing so, of course, we are not imposing
our will upon the said agencies, or substituting our
discretion for theirs, but merely discharging our sworn
responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution.
That is a duty we do not evade, lest we ourselves
betray our oath.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The

temporary restraining order dated January 13, 1989,
is LIFTED. The Court holds that the respondent has
been validly elected as a member of the Commission
on Appointments and is entitled to assume his seat in
that body pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the
Constitution. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED
G.R. No. 86649 July 12, 1990 Rogaciano
Mercado LB
ANNA DOMINIQUE M.L. COSETENG and (Lakas ng Bayan)
KABABAIHAN PARA SA INANG 4. Hon. Raul
BAYAN, petitioners, Daza LP
vs. 5. Hon. Alawadin
HON. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., as speaker of the T. Bandon Jr.
House of Representatives of the Congress of the PDP-Laban
Philippines; HON. FRANCISCO SUMULONG, as 6. Hon. Jose
Majority Floor Leader of the House of Cabochan PDP-
Representatives of the Congress of the Laban
Philippines; HON. JOVITO SALONGA, as Ex- 7. Hon. Lorna L.
Oficio Chairman of the Commission on Verano-Yap LP
Appointments; HON. ROQUE R. ABLAN, JR., HON. 8. Hon. Carlos R.
LORNA L. VERANO-YAP, HON. MIGUEL ROMERO, Imperial IND
HON. ANTONIO V. CUENCO, HON. ROGACIANO 9. Hon. Ma. Clara
M. MERCADO, HON. ALAWADIN T. BANDON, JR., L. Lobregat IND
HON. JOSE L. CABOCHAN, HON. CARLOS R. 10. Hon Natalio
IMPERIAL, HON. MA. CLARA L. LOBREGAT, HON. M. Beltran, Jr.
NATALIO M. BELTRAN, JR., HON. CARMELO J. LB/Unido/NP
LOCSIN & HON. LUIS C. SINGSON, as Members of 11. Hon. Carmelo
the Commission on Appointments for the House J. Locsin PDP-
of Representatives of the CONGRESS OF THE Laban/LB
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
(pp. 115-116, Rollo.)
Perfecto V. Fernandez, Jose P. Fernandez and
Cristobal P. Fernandez for petitioners. On September 22, 1987, upon nomination of the
Minority Floor Leader, the House elected Honorable
Panganiban, Benitez, Barinaga & Bautista Law Roque Ablan, Jr., KBL, as the twelfth member of the
Offices for Lorna L. Verano-Yap. Commission on Appointments, representing the
Coalesced Minority in the House.

A year later, on September 16, 1988, the "Laban ng

GRIO-AQUINO, J.:
The congressional elections of May 11, 1987 resulted
in the election to the House of Representatives of the
candidates of diverse political parties such as the
PDP-Laban, Lakas ng Bansa (LB), Liberal Party (LP),
NP-Unido, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL),
Panaghiusa, Kababaihan Para sa Inang Bayan
(KAIBA), and some independents. Petitioner Anna
Dominique M.L. Coseteng was the only candidate
elected under the banner of KAIBA.
On August 26, 1987, the House of Representatives,
upon nomination by the Majority Floor Leader, Cong.
Francisco Sumulong, elected from the Coalesced
Majority, eleven (11) out of twelve (12) congressmen
to represent the House in the Commission on
Appointments. They were:
1. Hon. Miguel
Romero LP
(Liberal Party)
2. Hon. Antonio
V. Cuenco LB-
Panaghiusa
3. Hon.
Demokratikong Pilipino" (LDP, for brevity) was
organized as a political party. As 158 out of 202
members of the House of Representatives formally
affiliated with the LDP, the House committees,
including the House representation in the Commission
on Appointments, had to be reorganized.
On October 8, 1988, petitioner Coseteng wrote a
letter to Speaker Ramon Mitra requesting that as
representative of KAIBA, she be appointed as a
member of the Commission on Appointments and
House Electoral Tribunal (p. 15, Rollo). Her request
was endorsed by nine (9) congressmen, namely, Hon.
Lally Laurel-Trinidad, Bonifacio Gillego, Luz Reyes
Bakunawa, Gerardo Cabochan, Jose D. Aspiras,
Oscar Santos, Eduardo N. Joson, Antonio H. Cerilles
and Isacio Pelaez.
On December 5, 1988, the House of Representatives,
on motion of the Majority Floor Leader and over the
objection of Cong. Raul A. Daza, LP, revised the
House majority membership in the Commission on
Appointments to conform with the new political
alignments by replacing Rep. Raul A. Daza, LP, with
Rep. Luis C. Singson, LDP, as follows:
 1. Hon. Miguel L. 4) that similarly invalid was the retention of
Romero LDP respondent Ablan as Minority member in the
2. Hon. Antonio Commission because he was neither nominated nor
V. Cuenco LDP elected as such by the minority party or parties in the
3. Hon. House (p. 31, Rollo).
Rogaciano M.
Mercado LDP Petitioner Coseteng further alleged that she is
4. Hon. Alawadin qualified to sit in the Commission on Appointments as
T. Bandon, Jr. a representative of the Minority because she has the
LDP support of nine (9) other congressmen and
5. Hon. Jose L. congresswomen of the Minority (p. 31, Rollo).
Cabochan LDP
6. Hon. Carlos R.
Imperial LDP In their collective Comment, the respondents House
7. Hon. Maria of Representatives, the Speaker, the Majority Floor
Clara L. Lobregat Leader, the members of the Commission on
LDP Appointments including Congressman Roque R.
8. Hon. Natalio Ablan, but excluding Congresswoman Lorna Verano-
M. Beltran, Jr. Yap (who filed a separate Comment), alleged: (1) that
LDP the legality of the reorganization of the Commission
9. Hon. Carmelo on Appointments is a political question, hence,
J. Locsin LDP outside the jurisdiction of this Court to decide, and (2)
10. Hon. Luis C. that in any case, the reorganization was "strictly in
Singson LDP consonance with Section 18, Article VI of the 1987
11. Hon. Lorna L. Constitution" i.e., on the basis of proportional
Verano-Yap LP representation of the political parties, considering the
majority coalition "as a form of a political party" (pp.
115, 118, Rollo). They further alleged that as of March
(p. 122, Rollo.) 3, 1989, 160 members of the House (including 26
former Liberals) had expressly renounced in writing
Congressman Ablan, KBL, was retained as the 12th their respective political party affiliations and formally
member representing the House minority. affiliated with the LDP leaving only 15 Liberals in the
House (p. 119, Rollo).itc-aslAfter its petition for
On February 1, 1989, Congresswoman Coseteng and registration as a political party was granted on August
her party, the KAIBA, filed this Petition for 28, 1989 by the First Division of the COMELEC) and
Extraordinary Legal Writs (which may be considered affirmed on November 23, 1989 by the COMELEC en
as a petition for quo warranto and injunction) praying banc, the LDP become the new Majority in the House.
this Court to declare as null and void the election of They finally argued that as KAIBA is part of the
respondent Ablan, Verano-Yap, Romero, Cuenco, Coalesced Majority which supports the administration
Mercado, Bandon, Cabochan, Imperial, Lobregat, of President Corazon C. Aquino, not of the minority,
Beltran, Locsin, and Singson, as members of the petitioner is bound by the choice of the Coalesced
Commission on Appointments, to enjoin them from Majority of the members who would sit in the
acting as such and to enjoin also the other Commission on Appointments.
respondents from recognizing them as members of
the Commission on Appointments on the theory that Representative Lorna Verano-Yap, in her comment
their election to that Commission violated the alleged that the petitioner has no better light than
constitutional mandate of proportional representation those already selected, to be chosen as a member of
because: the Commission on Appointments because: (1) the
Constitution was not violated in electing Yap and
1) the New Majority (158 LDP members out of the 202 eleven (11) other House members to the Commission
members of the House) is entitled to only nine (9) on Appointments; (2) respondent Yap is a rightful
seats out of the twelve to be filled by the House (p. incumbent; and (3) petitioner's claim to a seat on the
29, Rollo); Commission on Appointments is without legal and
factual basis (pp. 217-218, Rollo).
2) the members representing the political parties, or
coalitions thereof, must be nominated by their The Commission on Appointments took a neutral
respective political parties or coalitions; stand on the petition as the issues involved may touch
on the validity of its organization and the legality of
the entitlement of the LDP or the LP to representation,
3) the nomination and election of respondent Verano- which are raised in the case of Daza vs. Singson,
Yap by the respondents as representative of the G.R. No. 86344, then pending before this Court (pp.
minority was clearly invalid (p. 31, Rollo); and 195-198, Rollo).
The issue here is whether the members of the House
in the Commission on Appointments were chosen on
the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties therein as provided in Section 18,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which reads:
Sec. 18. There shall be a
Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the
Senate, as ex oficio Chairman,
twelve Senators, and twelve
Members of the House of
Representatives elected by each
House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political
parties and parties or organizations
registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The
chairman of the Commission shall
not vote, except in case of a tie.
The Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within
thirty session days of the Congress
from their submission. The
commission shall rule by a majority
vote of all the Members. (Art. VI,
1987 Constitution.)
After deliberating on the petition and the comments of
the respondents, we hold that the petition should be
dismissed, not because it raises a political question,
which it does not, but because the revision of the
House representation in the Commission on
Appointments is based on proportional representation
of the political parties therein as provided in Section
18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
The "political question" issue was settled in Daza vs.
Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989, where
this Court ruled that "the legality, and not the wisdom,
of the manner of filling the Commission on
Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution" is
justiciable, and, "even if the question were political in
nature, it would still come within our powers of review
under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by
Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which
includes the authority to determine whether grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or
instrumentality of the government."
The composition of the House membership in the
Commission on Appointments was based on
proportional representation of the political parties in
the House. There are 160 members of the LDP in the
House. They represent 79% of the House
membership (which may be rounded out to 80%).
Eighty percent (80%) of 12 members in the
Commission on Appointments would equal 9.6
members, which may be rounded out to ten (10)
members from the LDP. The remaining two seats
were apportioned to the LP (respondent Lorna
Verano-Yap) as the next largest party in the
Coalesced Majority and the KBL (respondent Roque
Ablan) as the principal opposition party in the House.
There is no doubt that this apportionment of the
House membership in the Commission on
Appointments was done "on the basis of proportional
representation of the political parties therein."
The other political parties or groups in the House,
such as petitioner's KAIBA (which is presumably a
member also of the Coalesced Majority), are bound
by the majority's choices. Even if KAIBA were to be
considered as an opposition party, its lone member
(petitioner Coseteng) represents only .4% or less than
1% of the House membership, hence, she is not
entitled to one of the 12 House seats in the
Commission on Appointments. To be able to claim
proportional membership in the Commission on
Appointments, a political party should represent at
least 8.4% of the House membership, i.e., it should
have been able to elect at least 17 congressmen or
congresswomen.
The indorsements of the nine (9) congressmen and
congresswomen in favor of the petitioner's election to
the Commission are inconsequential because they
are not members of her party and they signed
identical indorsements in favor of her rival,
respondent Congresswoman Verano-Yap.
There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that the
House members in the Commission on Appointments
should have been nominated and elected by their
respective political parties. The petition itself shows
that they were nominated by their respective floor
leaders in the House. They were elected by the
House (not by their party) as provided in Section 18,
Article VI of the Constitution. The validity of their
election to the Commission on Appointments
eleven (11) from the Coalesced Majority and one from
the minority is unassailable.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of
merit. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED
G.R. No. 106971 October 20, 1992
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., AND LAKAS-
NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS
(LAKAS-NUCD), petitioners,
vs.
NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ALBERTO ROMULO and
WIGBERTO E. TAADA, respondents.
NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, petitioner-in-
intervention.
CAMPOS, JR., J.:
This is a petition for Prohibition to prohibit
respondents Senator Alberto Romulo and Wigberto
Taada from sitting and assuming the position of
members of the Commission on Appointments and to
prohibit Senators Neptali Gonzales, as ex-officio
Chairman, of said Commission from recognizing and
allowing the respondent senators to sit as members
thereof.
As a result of the national elections held last May 11,
1992, the Senate is composed of the following
members or Senators representing the respective
political affiliations:
LDP 15
senators
NPC 5
senators
LAKAS-NUCD
3 senators
LP-PDP-LABAN
1 senator
Applying the mathematical formula agreed to by the
parties as follow as:
No. of senators of
a political party x
12 seats
Total no.
senators elected
the resulting composition of the senate
based on the rule of proportional
representation of each political party with
elected representatives in the Senate, is as
follows:
Political Party/ Proportional
Political Coalition Membership
Representatives
LDP 15 7.5 members
NPC 5 2.5 members
LAKAS-NUCD 3 1.5 members
LP-PDP-LABAN 1 .5 members
At the organization meeting of the Senate held on
August 27, 1992, Senator Romulo in his capacity as
Majority Floor Leader nominated, for and in his behalf
of the LDP, eight (8) senators for membership in the
Commission on Appointments, namely Senators
Angara, Herrera, Alvarez, Aquino, Mercado, Ople,
Sotto and Romulo. The nomination of the eight
senators 2 was objected to by Petitioner, Senator
Guingona, as Minority Floor Leader, and Senator
John Osmea, in representation of the NPC. To
resolve the impasse, Senator Arturo Tolentino
proposed a compromise to the effect that Senate
elect 3
. . . 12 members to the Commission
on Appointments, eight coming
from the LDP, two coming from
NPC, one coming from the Liberal
Party, with the understanding that
there are strong reservations
against this proportion of these
numbers so that if later on in action
in the Supreme Court, if any party is
found to have an excess in
representation, and if any party is
found to have a deficiency in
representation, that party will be
entitled to nominate and have
elected by this body its additional
representatives.
The proposed compromise above stated was
a temporary arrangement and, inspite of the
objections of Senator Guingona and
Osmea, to enable the Commission on
Appointments to be organized by the
election of its members, it was approved.
The elected members consisted of eight
LDP, one LP-PDP-LABAN, two NPC and
one LAKAS-NUCD.
of
On September 23, 1992, Senator Teofisto Guingona.
Jr., in his behalf and in behalf of Lakas-National Union
of Christian Democrats (LAKAS-NUCD), filed a
petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to
prohibit the respondent Senate President Neptali
Gonzales, as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission
on Appointments, from recognizing the membership
of Senators Alberto Romulo as the eight senator
elected by the LDP, and Wigberto E. Taada, as the
lone member representing the LP-PDP-LABAN, in the
Commission on Appointments, on the ground that the
proposed compromise of Senator Tolentino was
violative of the rule of proportional representation, and
that it is the right of the minority political parties in the
Senate, consistent with the Constitution, 4 to combine
their fractional representation in the Commission on
Appointments to complete one seat therein, and to
decide who, among the senators in their ranks, shall
be additionally nominated and elected thereto.
Section 18 Article VI of the Constitution of 1987
provides fro the creation of a Commission on
Appointments and the allocation of its membership,
as follows:
Sec. 18. There shall be a
Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the
Senate as ex-officio Chairman,
twelve members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each
house on the basis of proportional
representation from the political
parties or organizations registered
under the party list system
represented therein. The Chairman
of the Commission shall not vote
except in case of a tie. The
Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within
the session days of the Congress
from their submission of all the
members. (Emphasis supplied.)
Based on the mathematical computation of
proportional representation of the various political
parties with elected senators in the senators in the
Senate, each of these political parties is entitled to a
fractional membership in the Commission on
Appointments as stated in the first paragraph of this
decision.5 Each political party has a claim to an extra
half seat, and the election of respondents Senator
Romulo and Senator Taada to the Commission on
Appointments by the LDP majority is precisely
questioned by the petitioners because, according to
them, it unduly increased the membership of LDP and
LP-PDP-LABAN in the commission and reduced the
membership of the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC
correspondingly. In view of the conflicting claims of
each of the political parties/coalition duly represented
in the Senate to a fractional membership in the
Commission on Appointments, the election of
respondents Senator Romulo and Senator Taada
has become controversial and its validity
questionable. Hence, this petition. It has been
established that the legality of filling up the
membership of the Commission on Appointments is a
justiciable issue and not a political question. 6
We deem it necessary to resolve the respondents'
argument as to the nature of the instant petition.
There is no doubt that the issues involved herein are
constitutional in nature and are of vital importance to
our nation. They involve the interpretation of Section
18, Article VI of the Constitution which creates a
Commission on Appointments. Where constitutional
issues are properly raised in the context of the alleged
facts, procedural questions acquire a relatively minor
significance 7 and the "transcendental importance to
the public of the case demands that they be settled
promptly and definitely brushing aside . . .
technicalities of procedure". 8
For the purpose of resolving the case at bar, the
instant petition may be regarded as one of
prohibition 9 wherein the Senate is claimed to have
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it
designated respondent Senator Romulo as eighth
member of the Commission on Appointments, upon
nomination by the LDP, and respondent Senator
Taada as LP nominee, notwithstanding, that, in both
instance, LDP and LP are each entitled only to "half a
member". In the alternative, the petition may be
regarded as one for mandamus, 10 in which it is
claimed that the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC were
unlawfully excluded from the use and enjoyment of a
right or office to which each is entitled. Considering
the importance of the case at bar and in keeping with
the Court's duty under the Constitution to keep the
other branches of the government within the limits of
the Constitution and the laws of the land, this Court
has decided to brush aside legal technicalities of
procedure and take cognizance of this case.
The issues for determination by this Court may be
stated as follows:
1) Whether the election of Senators
Alberto Romulo and Wigberto E.
Taada as members of the
Commission on Appointments is in
accordance with the provision of
Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.
2) If said membership of the
respondent senators in the
Commission is violative of the
Constitutional provision, did the
respondent Senate act in grave
abuse of discretion in electing the
respondent Senators?
3) If there was grave abuse of
discretion by respondent Senate,
acting through the LDP majority,
should a writ of prohibition
enjoining, prohibiting and
restraining respondent Senators
from sitting as members of and
participating in the proceeding of
 the Commission on Appointments
be issued?
It is an established fact to which all the parties agree
that the mathematical representation of each of the
political parties represented in the Senate is as
follows:
LDP 7.5
NPC .5
LAKAS-NUCD
2.5
LP-PDP-LABAN
1.5
It is also a fact accepted by all such parties
that each of them entitled to a fractional
membership on the basis of the rule on
proportional representation of each of the
political parties. A literal interpretation of
Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution
leads to no other manner of application than
as above. The problem is what to do with the
fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the
parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the
Senate converted a fractional half
membership into a whole membership of one
senator by adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be
able to elect Senator Romulo. In so doing
one other party's fractional membership was
correspondingly reduced leaving the latter's
representation in the Commission on
Appointments to less than their proportional
representation in the Senate. This is clearly
a violation of Section 18 because it is no
longer in compliance with its mandate that
membership in the Commission be based on
the proportional representation of the
political parties. The election of Senator
Romulo gave more representation to the
LDP and reduced the representation of one
political party either the LAKAS-NUCD or
the NPC.
On the claim of Senator Taada that under the ruling
in the case of Senator Lorenzo Taada, 11 and the
cases of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, he has a right to
be elected as a member of the Commission on
Appointments because of: (a) the physical
impossibility of dividing a person, so that the fractional
membership must be rounded up into one senator; (b)
being the sole elected senator of his party, his party is
entitled to be represented in the Commission on
Appointments; (c) having been elected senator,
rounding up into one full senator his fractional
membership is consistent with the provision and spirit
of the Constitution and would be in full accord with the
principle of republicanism that emphasizes
democracy.
The cases of the two former senators mentioned
cannot be invoked as a precedent in support of
incumbent Senator Taada's claim to a membership
in the present Commission on Appointments. In the
time of his illustrious father, out of 24 elected senators
in the upper chamber of Congress, 23 belonged to the
Nacionalista Party, while Senator Lorenzo Taada,
who belonged to the Citizen's Party, was the lone
opposition. By force of circumstance, he became a
member of the Commission on Appointments
because he alone represented the minority party. Had
there been another senator belonging to a party other
than the Citizens' Party, this problem of who should sit
as the sole representative of the opposition party
would have arisen. In the case of Senator Ponce
Enrile, there were two senators elected from the
opposition party, namely, he and Senator Estrada.
Applying the rule of proportional representation
mentioned earlier (see formula), the opposition was
entitled to full member (not a fractional membership).
Senator Enrile was thus legally nominated and
elected as the minority representative in the Senate.
In the present case, if there were a political parties in
the Senate, and We follow Senators Taada's claim
that he is entitled to full membership as lone
representative of his party, We the anomaly of having
13 senators, where the Constitution allows only
twelve (12) in the Commission on Appointments.
We find the respondents' claim to membership in the
Commission on Appointments by nomination and
election of the LDP majority in the Senate as not in
accordance with Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and therefore violative of the same
because it is not in compliance with the requirements
that twelve senators shall be elected on the basis of
proportional representation of the resulting fractional
membership of the political parties represented
therein. To disturb the resulting fractional membership
of the political parties in the Commission on
Appointments by adding together two halves to make
a whole is a breach of the rule on proportional
representation because it will give the LDP an added
member in the Commission by utilizing the fractional
membership of the minority political party, who is
deprived of half a representation.
The provision of Section 18 on proportional
representation is mandatory in character and does not
leave any discretion to the majority party in the
Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on
proportional representation; otherwise, the party with
a majority representation in the Senate or the House
of Representatives can by sheer force of number
impose its will on the hapless minority. By requiring a
proportional representation in the Commission on
Appointments, Section 18 in effect works as a check
on the majority party in the Senate and helps to
maintain the balance of power. No party can claim
more than what it is entitled to under such rule. To
allow it to elect more than its proportional share of
members is to confer upon such a party a greater
share in the membership in the Commission on
Appointments and more power to impose its will on
the minority, who by the same token, suffers a
diminution of its rightful membership in the
Commission.
Section 18, also assures representation in the
Commission on Appointments of any political party
who succeeds in electing members to the Senate,
provided that the number of senators so elected
enables it to put a representative in the Commission
on Appointments. Drawing from the ruling in the case
of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr., 12 a political party must
have at least two senators in the Senate to be able to
have a representatives in the Commission on
Appointments, so that any number less than 2 will not
entitle such a party a membership in the Commission
on Appointments. This applies to the respondent
Senator Taada.
We lay down the following guidelines accordingly:
1) In the Senate, political party or
coalition must have at least two
duly elected senators for every seat
in the Commission on
Appointments.
2) Where there are more than two
political parties represented in the
Senate, a political party/coalition
with a single senator in the Senate
cannot constitutionally claims seat
in the Commission.
We do not agree with respondents' claim that
it is mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the
Commission on Appointments. The
Constitution does not contemplate that the
Commission on Appointments must
necessarily include twelve (12) senators and
twelve (12) members of the House of
Representatives. What the Constitution
requires is that there be at least a majority of
the entire membership. Under Section 18,
the Commission shall rule by majority vote of
all the members and in Section 19, the
Commission shall meet only while congress
is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a
majority of all its members "to discharge
such powers and functions herein conferred
upon it". Implementing the above provisions
of the Constitution, Section 10 Chapter 3 of
the Rules of the Commission on
Appointments, provides as follows:
Sec. 10. Place of Meeting and
Quorum: The Commission shall
meet at either the session hall of
the Senate or the House of
Representatives upon call of the
Chairman or as the Commission
may designate. The presence of at
least thirteen (13) members is
necessary to constitute a quorum.
Provided, however, that at least
four (4) of the members constituting
the quorum should come from
either house. . . .
It is quite evident that the Constitution does not
require the election and presence of twelve (12)
senators and twelve (12) members of the House of
Representatives in order that the Commission may
function. Other instances may be mentioned of
Constitutional collegial bodies which perform their
composition is expressly specified by the Constitution.
Among these are the Supreme
Court, 13 Civil Service Commission, 14 Commission
on Election, 15 Commission on Audit. 16 They
perform their function so long and there is the
required quorum, usually a majority of its
membership. The Commission on Appointments may
perform its functions and transact it s business even if
only ten (10) senators are elected thereto as long as a
quorum exists.
It may also be mentioned that while the Constitution
provides for equal membership from the Senate and
the House of Representatives in the Commission on
Appointments, the senators on the one hand, and the
representatives, on the other, do not vote separately
but jointly, and usually along party lines. Even if
Senator Taada would not be able sit in the
Commission on Appointments, the LP-LDP-LABAN
would still be represented in the Commission by
congressman Ponce Enrile who has become a
member of the LP. On the other hand, there is nothing
to stop any of the political party in order to fill up the
two vacancies resulting from this decision.
Assuming that the Constitution intended that there be
always twelve (12) senators in the Commission on
Appointments, the instant situation cannot be rectified
by the Senate in disregard of the rule on proportional
representation. The election of senator Romulo and
Senator Taada as members of the Commission on
Appointments by the LDP majority in the Senate was
clearly a violation of Section 18 of Article VI of the
1987 Constitution. Their nomination and election by
the LDP majority by sheer force of superiority in
numbers during the Senate organization meeting of
August 27, 1992 was done in grave abuse of
discretion. Where power is exercised in a manner
inconsistent with the command of the Constitution,
and by reason of numerical strength, knowingly and
not merely inadvertently, said exercise amounts to
abuse of authority granted by law and grave abuse of
discretion is properly found to exist.

In the light of the foregoing and on the basis of the

applicable rules and jurisprudence on the matter
before this Court, We declare the election of Senator
Alberto Romulo and Senator Wigberto Taada as
members of the Commission on Appointments as null
and void for being in violation of the rule on
proportional representation under Section 18 of Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
Accordingly, a writ of prohibition is hereby issued
ordering the said respondents Senator Romulo and
Senator Taada to desist from assuming, occupying
and discharging the functions of members of the
Commission on Appointments; and ordering the
respondents Senate President Neptali Gonzales, in
his capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the
Commission on Appointments, to desist from
recognizing the membership of the respondent
Senators and from allowing and permitting them from
sitting and participating as members of said
Commission.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 180055 July 31, 2009 In August 2007, the Senate and the House of
Representatives elected their respective contingents
FRANKLIN M. DRILON as President and in to the Commission on Appointments (CA).
representation of the LIBERAL PARTY OF THE
PHILIPPINES (LP), AND HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. The contingent in the Senate to the CA was
ABAYA, HON. WAHAB M. AKBAR, HON. MARIA composed of the following senators with their
EVITA R. ARAGO, HON. PROCESSO J. ALCALA, respective political parties:
HON. ROZZANO RUFINO BIAZON, HON. MARY
MITZI CAJAYON, HON. FREDENIL H. CASTRO, Sen. Maria Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal
HON. GLENN ANG CHONG, HON. SOLOMON R. PDP-Laban
CHUNGALAO, HON. PAUL RUIZ DAZA, HON.
ANTONIO A. DEL ROSARIO, HON. CECILIA S.
LUNA, HON. MANUEL M. MAMBA, HON. Sen. Joker Arroyo KAMPI
HERMILANDO I. MANDANAS, HON. ALVIN
SANDOVAL, HON. LORENZO R. TAADA III, HON. Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano Lakas-CMD
REYNALDO S. UY, HON. ALFONSO V. UMALI JR.,
HON. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioners, Sen. Panfilo Lacson UNO
vs.
HON. JOSE DE VENECIA JR. in his official
capacity as Speaker of the House of Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada PMP
Representatives; HON. ARTHUR D. DEFENSOR,
SR., in his official capacity as Majority Floor Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile PMP
Leader of the House of Representatives, HON.
MANUEL B. VILLAR, in his official capacity as ex-
Sen. Loren Legarda NPC
officio Chairman of the Commission on
Appointments, ATTY. MA. GEMMA D. ASPIRAS, in
her official capacity as Secretary of the Sen. Richard Gordon Lakas-CMD
Commission on Appointments, HON. PROSPERO
C. NOGRALES, HON. EDGARDO C. ZIALCITA, Sen. Mar Roxas LP
HON. ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO, HON. JOSE
CARLOS V. LACSON, HON. EILEEN R. ERMITA-
Sen. Lito Lapid Lakas-CMD
BUHAIN, HON. JOSE V. YAP, HON. RODOLFO T.
ALBANO III, HON. EDUARDO R. GULLAS, HON.
CONRADO M. ESTRELLA III, HON. RODOLFO Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago PRP
"OMPONG" PLAZA, HON. EMMYLOU J. TALIO-
MENDOZA and HON. EMMANUEL JOEL J. The members of the contingent of the House of
VILLANUEVA, in their individual official capacities Representatives in the CA and their respective
as "elected" members of the Commission on political parties were as follows:
Appointments, Respondents.
Rep. Prospero C. Nograles Lakas-CMD
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Rep. Eduardo C. Zialcita Lakas-CMD
G.R. No. 183055 July 31, 2009
Rep. Abdullah D. Dimaporo Lakas-CMD
SENATOR MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S.
MADRIGAL, Petitioner,
vs. Rep. Jose Carlos V. Lacson Lakas-CMD
SENATOR MANUEL VILLAR in his capacity as
Senate President and Ex-Officio Chairman of the Rep. Eileen R. Ermita-Buhain Lakas-CMD
Commission on Appointments,
REPRESENTATIVE PROSPERO NOGRALES in his Rep. Jose V. Yap Lakas-CMD
capacity as the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS, Respondents. Rep. Rodolfo T. Albano III KAMPI

DECISION Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas KAMPI

CARPIO MORALES, J.: Rep. Rodolfo "Ompong" G. Plaza NPC

Rep. Conrado M. Estrella NPC

 Rep. Emmylou J. Talio-Mendoza NP
Rep. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva CIBAC
Party List
In the second week of August 2007, petitioners in the
first petition, G.R. No. 180055, went to respondent
then Speaker Jose de Venecia to ask for one seat for
the Liberal Party in the CA. Speaker Jose de Venecia
merely said that he would study their demand.1
During the session of the House of Representatives
on September 3, 2007, petitioner in the first petition,
Representative Taada, requested from the House of
Representatives leadership2 one seat in the CA for
the Liberal Party.3 To his request, Representative
Neptali Gonzales II4 begged the indulgence of the
Liberal Party "to allow the Legal Department to make
a study on the matter."5
In a separate move, Representative Taada, by letter
of September 10, 2007, requested the Secretary
General of the House of Representatives the
reconstitution of the House contingent in the CA to
include one seat for the Liberal Party in compliance
with the provision of Section 18, Article VI of the
Constitution.6 Representative Taada also brought
the matter to the attention of then Speaker De
Venecia, reiterating the position that since there were
at least 20 members of the Liberal Party in the 14th
Congress, the party should be represented in the CA.7
As of October 15, 2007, however, no report or
recommendation was proffered by the Legal
Department, drawing Representative Taada to
request a report or recommendation on the matter
within three days.8
In reply, Atty. Grace Andres of the Legal Affairs
Bureau of the House of Representatives informed
Representative Taada that the department was
constrained to withhold the release of its legal opinion
because the handling lawyer was directed to secure
documents necessary to establish some of the
members party affiliations.9
Hence spawned the filing on October 31, 2007 of the
first petition by petitioner former Senator Franklin M.
Drilon (in representation of the Liberal Party), et al.,
for prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto with
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order, against then
Speaker De Venecia, Representative Arthur
Defensor, Sr. in his capacity as Majority Floor Leader
of the House of Representatives, Senator Manuel B.
Villar in his capacity as ex officio chairman of the CA,
Atty. Ma. Gemma D. Aspiras in her capacity as
Secretary of the CA, and the individual members of
the House of Representatives contingent to the
CA.10 The petition in G.R. No. 180055 raises the
following issues:
a. WHETHER THE LIBERAL PARTY WITH AT
LEAST TWENTY (20) MEMBERS WHO SIGNED
HEREIN AS PETITIONERS, IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO ONE (1) SEAT
IN THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS.
b. WHETHER THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENTS HAVE
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN CONSTITUTING THE
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE REQUIRED
PROPORTIONAL CONSTITUTION BY DEPRIVING
THE LIBERAL PARTY OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
ENTITLEMENT TO ONE (1) SEAT THEREIN.
c. WHETHER AS A RESULT OF THE GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENTS,
THE WRITS PRAYED FOR IN THIS PETITION BE
ISSUED NULLIFYING THE CURRENT
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS, RESTRAINING THE CURRENT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS FROM
SITTING AND PARTICIPATING IN THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS, OUSTING THE AFFECTED
RESPONDENTS WHO USURPED, INTRUDED INTO
AND UNLAWFULLY HELD POSITIONS IN THE
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS AND
REQUIRING THE RESPONDENTS TO
RECONSTITUTE AND/OR REELECT THE
MEMBERS OF SAID COMMISSION.11 (Italics in the
original)
And it prays that this Court:
a. Immediately upon the filing of the instant
Petition, issue a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary
Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction,
enjoining all Respondents and all persons
under their direction, authority, supervision,
and control from further proceeding with their
actions relating to the illegal and
unconstitutional constitution of the
Commission on Appointments and to the
unlawful exercise of its members functions,
contrary to the rule on proportional
representation of political parties with
respect to the House of Representatives
contingent in the said Commission;
b. After careful consideration of the merits of
the case, render judgment making the
injunction permanent and ordering
 Respondents and all persons under their
direction, authority, supervision, and control;
xxxx
c. Declare Respondents action in not
allotting one (1) seat to Petitioners null and
void for being a direct violation of Section 18,
Article VI of the Constitution;
d. Declare the proceedings of the
Commission on Appointments null and void,
insofar as they violate the rule on
proportional representation of political parties
in said Commission;
e. Oust the affected respondents, whoever
they are, who usurped, intruded into and
have unlawfully held positions in the
Commission on Appointments and
f. Require Respondents to alter, reorganize,
reconstitute and reconfigure the composition
of the Commission on Appointments in
accordance with proportional representation
based on the actual numbers of members
belonging to duly accredited and registered
political parties who were elected into office
during the last May 14, 2007 Elections by, at
the very least, respecting and allowing
Congressman Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. as the
duly nominated Commission on
Appointments member of the Liberal Party of
the Philippines to sit therein as such.12
Respondents Senator Villar and CA Secretary Aspiras
filed their Comment13 on December 6, 2007, moving
for the dismissal of the petition on these grounds:
I. THE POWER TO ELECT MEMBERS TO THE
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS BELONGS TO
EACH HOUSE OF CONGRESS PURSUANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION. AS SUCH, THE PETITION IS
NOT DIRECTED AT THE HEREIN RESPONDENTS.
II. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT THE COMMISSION MUST HAVE COMPLETE
MEMBERSHIP IN ORDER THAT IT CAN
FUNCTION. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES IS THAT THERE MUST AT LEAST BE
A MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION FOR IT TO VALIDLY CONDUCT ITS
PROCEEDINGS AND TRANSACT ITS
BUSINESS.14(Emphasis in the original)
Then Speaker De Venecia and Representative
Defensor filed their Comment and Opposition15 on
February 18, 2008, moving too for the dismissal of the
petition on these grounds:
I. THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF DO NOT
CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
THAT WILL JUSTIFY THE GRANT OF THE
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS.16
II. THE LIBERAL PARTY DOES NOT POSSESS
THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF MEMBERS THAT
WOULD ENTITLE THE PARTY TO A SEAT IN THE
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS. IT IS,
THEREFORE, NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO
INSTITUTE THE INSTANT PETITION FOR QUO
WARRANTO.17
III. THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO EXHAUST THE
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THEM.18
IV. THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES
AS TO THE AFFILIATION OF THE MEMBERS
NEED TO BE SETTLED IN A TRIAL.19 (Emphasis in
the original)
Meantime, Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal
of PDP-Laban, by separate letters of April 17, 2008 to
Senator Villar and Speaker Prospero Nograles,
claimed that the composition of the Senate contingent
in the CA violated the constitutional requirement of
proportional representation for the following reasons:
1. PMP has two representatives in the CA
although it only has two members in the
Senate and thus [is] entitled only to one (1)
seat.
2. KAMPI has only one (1) member in the
Senate and thus is not entitled to a CA seat
and yet it is represented in the CA.
3. PRP has only one (1) member in the
Senate and thus is not entitled to a CA seat
and yet it is represented in the CA.
4. If Senators Richard Gordon and Pilar
Juliana Cayetano are Independents, then
Sen. Gordon cannot be a member of the CA
as Independents cannot be represented in
the CA even though there will be three
Independents in the CA.
5. If Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano is now NP, he
still can sit in the CA representing NP.20
She also claimed that the composition of the House of
Representatives contingent in the CA violated the
constitutional requirement of proportional
representation for the following reasons:
1. Lakas-CMD currently has five (5)
members in the Commission on
 Appointments although it is entitled only to
four (4) representatives and thus [is] in
excess of a member;
2. KAMPI currently has three (3) members in
the Commission on Appointments although it
is entitled only to two (2) representatives and
thus is excess of a member;
3. Liberal Party is not represented in the
Commission on Appointments although it is
entitled to one (1) nominee; and
4. Party-List CIBAC has a representative in
the Commission on Appointments although it
only has two members in the House of
Representatives and therefore [is] not
entitled to any seat.21
Senator Madrigal thus requested the reorganization of
the membership of the CA and that, in the meantime,
"all actions of [the] CA be held in abeyance as the
same may be construed as illegal and
unconstitutional."22
By letter of May 13, 2008, Senator Madrigal again
wrote Senator Villar as follows:
Today, I was advised that the Committee on Budget
and Management of Senator Mar Roxas has
endorsed the ad interim appointment of Rolando G.
Andaya as Secretary of the Department of Budget
and Management for approval by the CA in the
plenary. I believe it is imperative that the serious
constitutional questions that I have raised be settled
before the plenary acts on this endorsement by the
Committee on Budget and Management. Otherwise,
like Damocles sword, a specter of doubt continues to
be raised on the validity of actions taken by the CA
and its committees.23
Still later or on May 19, 2008, Senator Madrigal sent
another letter to Senator Villar declaring that she
"cannot in good conscience continue to participate in
the proceedings of the CA, until such time as [she]
get[s] a response to [her] letters and until the
constitutional issue of the CAs composition is
resolved by the leadership of the Commission,"24 and
that without any such resolution, she would be forced
to invoke Section 20 of the CA rules against every
official whose confirmation would be submitted to the
body for deliberation.25
The CA Committee on Rules and Resolutions, by
letter-comment of May 26, 2008, opined that the CA
has neither the power nor the discretion to reject a
member who is elected by either House, and that any
complaints about the election of a member or
members should be addressed to the body that
elected them.26
By letter of May 28, 2008, Senator Villar advised
Senator Madrigal as follows:
xxxx
Noting your position that you will not continue to
participate in the proceedings of the CA "until the
constitutional issue of the CAs composition is
resolved by the leadership of the Commission" x x
x, the Secretary of the Commission, upon my
instructions, transmitted the same to the CA
Committee on Rules and Resolutions. It was my
intention to have the Committee study and deliberate
on the matter and to recommend what step/s to take
on your request that "all actions of the Commission be
held in abeyance" x x x.
In view however, of your manifestation during the May
26, 2008 meeting of the CA Committee on Rules and
Resolutions, and of the written comment of Sen.
Arroyo that "If there is a complaint in the election of a
member or members, it shall be addressed to the
body that elected them, namely the Senate and/or the
House," I have given instructions to transmit the
original copies of your letters to the Senate Secretary
for their immediate inclusion in the Order of Business
of the Session of the Senate so that your concerns
may be addressed by the Senate in caucus and/or in
plenary.27 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Undaunted, Senator Madrigal, by letter of June 2,
2008 addressed to Senator Villar, reiterated her
request that all actions of the CA be held in abeyance
pending the reorganization of both the Senate and
House of Representatives contingents.28
Senator Madrigal thereafter filed on June 13, 2008 the
second petition, G.R. No. 183055, for prohibition and
mandamus with prayer for issuance of temporary
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction against
Senator Villar in his capacity as Senate President and
Ex-Officio Chairman of the CA, Speaker Nograles,
and the CA,29alleging that respondents committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction
A. . . . IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED PROPORTIONAL
PARTY REPRESENTATION OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS;
B. . . . IN CONTINUOUSLY CONDUCTING
HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS ON THE
APPOINTMENTS DESPITE THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
COMPOSITION WHICH MUST BE PROHIBITED BY of Representative Eduardo M. Gullas of KAMPI, their
THIS HONORABLE COURT; and petition had become moot and academic.

C. . . . IN FAILING, DESPITE REPEATED
DEMANDS FROM PETITIONER, TO RE-ORGANIZE
THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATED
PROPORTIONAL PARTY REPRESENTATION OF
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, WHICH REQUIREMENT
MUST BE ENFORCED BY THIS HONORABLE
COURT.30 (Emphasis in the original)
In his Comment of August 19, 2008 on the second
petition, respondent Senator Villar proffered the
following arguments:
I.
Petitioner has no standing to file [the] petition.

She thus prayed for the II.

1. . . . issu[ance of] a temporary restraining Petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of

order/a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin primary jurisdiction or prior resort. Each House of
Respondents from proceeding with their Congress has the sole function of reconstituting
illegal and unlawful actions as officials and or changing the composition of its own
members of the Commission on contingent to the CA.
Appointments which composition is
unconstitutional, pending resolution of the III.
instant Petition;
Petitioner is estopped.
2. Declar[ation that] the composition of the
Commission on Appointments [is] null and IV.
void insofar as it violates the proportional
party representation requirement mandated
by Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Presumption of regularity in the conduct of
Philippine Constitution; official functions.

3. Issu[ance of] a Writ of Prohibition against V.

respondents Senate President Manuel Villar,
Speaker Prospero Nograles and Secretary The extraordinary remedies of Prohibition and
Gemma Aspiras to desist from further Mandamus and the relief of a TRO are not
proceeding with their illegal and unlawful available to the Petitioner.34 (Emphasis in the
actions as officers of the Commission on original; underscoring supplied)
Appointments, the composition of which is
null and void for being violative of the
In his Comment and Opposition35 filed on September
proportional party representation
3, 2008, Speaker Nograles proffered the following
requirement under Article VI, Section 18 of
arguments:
the 1987 Philippine Constitution; and

A. WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSE OF

4. Issu[ance of] a Writ of Mandamus
REPRESENTATIVES, THE PETITIONS HAVE
commanding respondents Senate President
ALREADY BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC
Manuel Villar, Speaker Prospero Nograles
UPON THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE
and Secretary Gemma Aspiras to reorganize
ALFONSO V. UMALI, JR., MEMBER OF THE
and reconstitute the Commission on
LIBERAL PARTY, TO THE HOUSE CONTINGENT
Appointments in accordance with the 1987 TO THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS.36
Constitution.31

B. THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF DO NOT

The Court consolidated G.R. No. 18005532 and G.R.
CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
No. 183055 on July 1, 2008.
THAT WILL JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION BY THE
Petitioners in the first petition, G.R. No. 180055, later
filed on August 15, 2008 a Motion with Leave of Court
HONORABLE COURT AND THE GRANT OF THE
to Withdraw the Petition,33 alleging that with the
EXTRAORDINARY WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND
designation of Representative Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. of PROHIBITION.37
the Liberal Party as a member of the House of
Representatives contingent in the CA in replacement
C. THE REMEDY OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO
RECONSTITUTE THE HOUSE CONTINGENT TO
THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS RESTS,
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WITH THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.38
D. CONSIDERING THE AFOREMENTIONED
FACTS AND JURISPRUDENCE, IT IS SUBMITTED
THAT SENATOR MADRIGAL HAS NO STANDING
TO PURSUE THE INSTANT CASE.
E. THE PETITION IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-
FORUM SHOPPING AS REQUIRED BY RULE 65
SECTIONS 2 AND 3 AND SUPREME COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 28-
91. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
The first petition, G.R. No. 180055, has thus indeed
been rendered moot with the designation of a Liberal
Party member of the House contingent to the CA,
hence, as prayed for, the petition is withdrawn.
As for the second petition, G.R. No. 183055, it fails.
Senator Madrigal failed to show that she sustained
direct injury as a result of the act complained of.39 Her
petition does not in fact allege that she or her political
party PDP-Laban was deprived of a seat in the CA, or
that she or PDP-Laban possesses personal and
substantial interest to confer on her/it locus standi.
Senator Madrigals primary recourse rests with the
respective Houses of Congress and not with this
Court. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction dictates
that prior recourse to the House is necessary before
she may bring her petition to court.40 Senator Villars
invocation of said doctrine is thus well-taken, as is the
following observation of Speaker Nograles, citing Sen.
Pimentel, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal:41
In order that the remedies of Prohibition and
Mandamus may be availed of, there must be "no
appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law".lavvph!1
It is worth recalling that, in the 11th Congress,
Senator Aquilino Pimentel advocated the allocation of
a position in the Commission on Appointments for the
Party-List Representatives. Just like the Petitioner in
the instant case, Senator Pimentel first wrote to the
Senate President, requesting that the Commission on
Appointments be restructured to conform to the
constitutional provision on proportional
representation. xxx Without awaiting final
determination of the question xxx, Pimentel filed a
Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with the
Supreme Court. In the said case, the Honorable Court
ruled:
"The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives the prerogative, within
constitutionally defined limits, to choose from among
its district and party-list representatives those who
may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the
HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the
Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on
the House the authority to elect among their members
those who would fill the 12 seats for Senators and 12
seats for House members in the Commission on
Appointments. Under Section 17, Article VI of the
Constitution, each chamber exercises the power to
choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who
among their members would occupy the allotted 6
seats of each chambers respective electoral tribunal.
xxxx
Thus, even assuming that party-list
representatives comprise a sufficient number and
have agreed to designate common nominees to
the HRET and the CA, their primary recourse
clearly rests with the House of Representatives
and not this Court. Under Sections 17 and 18,
Article VI of the Constitution, party-list representatives
must first show to the House that they possess the
required strength to be entitled to seats in the HRET
and the CA. Only if the House fails to comply with the
directive of the Constitution on proportional
representation of political parties in the HRET and the
CA can the party-list representatives seek recourse to
this Court under its power of judicial review. Under
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse
to the House is necessary before petitioners may
bring the instant case to the court. Consequently,
petitioners direct recourse to this Court is
premature.
Following the ruling in Pimentel, it cannot be said that
recourse was already had in the House of
Representatives. Furnishing a copy of Petitioners
letter to the Senate President and to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives does not constitute the
primary recourse required prior to the invocation of
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Further, it is the
Members of the House who claim to have been
deprived of a seat in the Commission on
Appointments that must first show to the House that
they possess the required numerical strength to be
entitled to seats in the Commission on Appointments.
Just like Senator Pimentel, demanding seats in the
Commission on Appointments for Congressmen, who
have not even raised the issue of its present
composition in the House, is not Senator Madrigals
affair.42 (Italics, underscoring, and emphasis supplied
by Representative Nograles)
It bears noting that Senator Villar had already
transmitted original copies of Senator Madrigals
letters to the Senate Secretary for inclusion in the
Order of Business of the Session of the Senate to
address her concerns. Senator Madrigals filing of the
second petition is thus premature.

Senator Madrigals suggestion that Senators Pilar

Juliana Cayetano and Richard Gordon be considered
independent senators such that the latter should not
be allowed to be a member of the CA,43 and that
Senator Alan Peter Cayetano be considered a
member of the NP such that he may sit in the CA as
his inclusion in NP will entitle his party to one seat
involves a determination of party affiliations, a
question of fact which the Court does not resolve.

WHEREFORE, the Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw

the Petition in G.R. No. 180055 is GRANTED. The Petition
is WITHDRAWN. The Petition in G.R. No. 183055
is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.