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, RESPONDENTS.

Daza versus Singson

The Case

This is a special civil action for prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction, filed by Representative Raul A. Daza against Representative Luis C. Singson and the Secretary of the Commission on Appointments. The petitioner challenges his removal from the Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the respondent, after the House of Representatives reorganized its representation in that body following a political realignment. The case matters because it fixes the standard for when a House of Congress may change its representation in the Commission on Appointments, and because it confirms that such a change is a question of legality, not of policy, and so is reviewable by the courts.

Procedural History

The petitioner came directly to the Supreme Court on January 13, 1989, by petition for prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction, challenging his removal from the Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the respondent. Acting on the petition that same day, the Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent both the petitioner and the respondent from serving in the Commission on Appointments. The Solicitor General submitted a Comment as amicus curiae in compliance with an order from the Court. The Court resolved the case in its decision, dismissing the petition and lifting the temporary restraining order.

Facts

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.

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, swelling its number to 159 and correspondingly reducing their former party to only 17 members.

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 it 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 respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the LDP. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court to challenge his removal and the respondent's assumption of his seat.

Issues

• Whether or not the question raised by the petitioner is political in nature and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the respondent has been improperly impleaded, the real party respondent being the House of Representatives.
• Whether or not the petitioner may be removed from the Commission on Appointments, given that his election thereto is claimed to be permanent under the doctrine in Cunanan versus Tan.
• Whether or not the reorganization of the House representation in the Commission on Appointments is based on a permanent political realignment, considering that the LDP is not a duly registered political party and has not yet attained political stability.

Applicable Provisions

Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution provides:

Section 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.

This provision is the constitutional standard against which the House reorganization is measured, requiring proportional representation of the political parties represented in each chamber.

Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution 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.

This provision supplies the Court's expanded jurisdiction, which reaches even political questions in proper cases.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that it has the competence to act on the matter. What is before the Court is not a discretionary act of the House of Representatives that may not be reviewed because it is political in nature. What is involved is the legality, not the wisdom, of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments. As Chief Justice Concepcion explained in Tañada versus Cuenco, the term political question connotes a question of policy, concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. The Court added that even if the issue were political in nature, it would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution.

On the second issue, the Court held that the objection of improper impleading is not an insuperable obstacle. The proceeding may be treated as a petition for quo warranto, since the petitioner is actually questioning the respondent's right to sit as a member of the Commission on Appointments. Moreover, where serious constitutional questions are involved, the transcendental importance to the public demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court reviewed Cunanan versus Tan. In that case, the reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was invalid because it was not based on proportional representation, the defectors not having disaffiliated from their party and permanently joined the new political group. The Court held:

In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if due to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the formation of the so-called Allied Majority, does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments may have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission on Appointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress.

The Court also quoted the following from Cunanan versus Tan:

Upon the other hand, the constitutional provision to the effect that there shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives elected by each House, respectively, on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein, necessarily connotes the authority of each House of Congress to see to it that this requirement is duly complied with. As a consequence, it may take appropriate measures, not only upon the initial organization of the Commission, but, also, subsequently thereto. If by reason of successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from the political party to which they belonged and/or of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in the representation of the political parties in the House is materially changed, the House is clothed with authority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats in the Commission on Appointments held by members of said House belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change and then fill said vacancies in conformity with the Constitution.

The petitioner's argument that the LDP was not a duly registered political party boomeranged against him. On November 23, 1989, the Commission on Elections in an en banc resolution affirmed the resolution of its First Division granting the LDP's petition for registration as a political party. The petitioner's contention that, even if registered, the party must still pass the test of time to prove its permanence was not acceptable. The LDP had been in existence for more than one year, had 157 members in the House of Representatives and 6 members in the Senate, and its titular head was no less than the President of the Philippines. The Court held that the House of Representatives has the authority 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, provided such changes are permanent and do not include 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.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain the following rules. First, the question of whether a House of Congress validly reorganized its representation in the Commission on Appointments is a justiciable question, involving the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of, and is reviewable by the courts. Second, even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within the Court's powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred 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. Third, the House of Representatives has the authority 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, provided such changes are permanent and do not include 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. Fourth, the Constitution does not require that a political party be registered to be entitled to proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, and the party need not pass a test of time to prove its permanence.

Disposition

The petition is dismissed, the temporary restraining order is lifted, and 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.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the House of Representatives may change its representation in the Commission on Appointments at any time to reflect permanent changes in the political alignments of its membership, but not temporary alliances or factional divisions. Examiners like to use this case to test the justiciability of legislative reorganization of the Commission on Appointments and the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over political questions.