DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, PETITIONER, VS. REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. PINEDA, MAGDALENO M. PALACOL, COL. JUANITO G. CAMASURA, JR., OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVE WHO MAY BE APPOINTED …

Bondoc versus Pineda

The Case

This is Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc against Representatives Marciano M. Pineda, Magdaleno M. Palacol, Juanito G. Camasura, Jr., and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Bondoc, the losing protestant in a congressional election contest, asks the Supreme Court to annul the act of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the election of Congressman Camasura as a member of the Electoral Tribunal, and to compel Camasura to reassume his duties. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between legislative autonomy and judicial power: it holds that the House may not, at the bidding of the dominant political party, reconstitute the Tribunal in order to abort a decision freely reached in an election contest, and that such action is subject to review for grave abuse of discretion.

Procedural History

The controversy began in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, where Bondoc's protest against Pineda was heard, ballots revised, evidence presented, and memoranda submitted. A decision in Bondoc's favor was reached, then delayed by a re-appreciation of ballots requested by the Liberal Democratic Party members, and finally set for promulgation. On the eve of promulgation, the House of Representatives, in plenary session, voted to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura as a member of the Tribunal. The Tribunal then cancelled the scheduled promulgation. The three Supreme Court Justices sitting in the Tribunal asked the Chief Justice to be relieved; the Supreme Court declined the request and directed them to resume their duties, expressing concern over the intrusion of non-judicial factors into the Tribunal's proceedings. Bondoc then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and the Court, without giving the petition due course, required the respondents to comment and issued a temporary restraining order against reorganizing the Tribunal.

Facts

In the local and congressional elections of May 11, 1987, Marciano M. Pineda of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino and Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party vied for Representative of the Fourth District of Pampanga. Pineda received 31,700 votes and Bondoc 28,400, a difference of 3,300 votes, and Pineda was proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, composed of nine members: three Supreme Court Justices and six Representatives chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties.

After revision of the ballots and submission of the case for decision, a decision was reached by October 1990 giving Bondoc a lead of twenty-three votes. The Liberal Democratic Party members insisted on a re-appreciation and recount, delaying finalization by at least four months. The reexamination increased Bondoc's lead to 107 votes. Congressman Camasura voted with the three Justices and Congressman Cerilles to proclaim Bondoc the winner. On March 4, 1991, Camasura revealed to the party's Secretary General, Congressman Cojuangco, both the final tally and that he had voted for Bondoc consistent with truth and justice and to honor a gentlemen's agreement to abide by the result of the appreciation of the contested ballots.

The revelation stirred a hornets' nest. On March 13, 1991, the eve of the scheduled promulgation, Cojuangco informed Camasura that the party chapter had expelled him and that the party's Executive Committee had confirmed the expulsion, and asked the House to take note of it where party membership is a prerequisite. That same day, the House of Representatives, in plenary session, voted to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura to the Tribunal. The Tribunal then cancelled the promulgation, reasoning that without Camasura's vote the decision lacked the concurrence of five members required by its rules.

Issues

• Whether or not the House of Representatives may, at the request of the dominant political party, withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of a member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in order to thwart a decision freely reached in a pending election contest.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may review and annul that action of the House of Representatives, or whether it is a political question beyond judicial cognizance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be members of the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

This is the provision whose composition the House sought to manipulate, and whose grant of sole-judge power the Court construes as a judicial, not a political, function.

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution defines judicial power, and the Court quotes it as follows:

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 is the textual basis for the Court's authority to inquire into the House's act despite the political-question argument.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the House of Representatives may not interfere with the disposition of an election contest in the Electoral Tribunal through the ruse of reorganizing the representation of the majority party. The Tribunal is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House, and its members, upon assumption of their duties, sit no longer as representatives of their political parties but as impartial judges. The expulsion of Congressman Camasura was a party affair, but the rescission of his membership in the Tribunal was an act of the House, and it was done to neutralize the pro-Bondoc majority and abort a decision already reached.

On the second issue, the Court rejects the political-question defense. It acknowledges that in the past the Court was all too willing to avoid confrontation by invoking that doctrine, but holds that the duty to look into the constitutionality and validity of legislative or executive action, especially when private rights are affected, is now recognized. A constitutional grant of authority is not usually unrestricted, and it becomes the responsibility of the courts to ascertain whether the coordinate branches have adhered to the mandate of the fundamental law. The Court states the principle in these words:

A constitutional grant of authority is not usually unrestricted, limitations being provided for as to what may be done and how it is to be accomplished, necessarily then, it becomes the responsibility of the courts to ascertain whether the two coordinate branches have adhered to the mandate of the fundamental law. The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld.

The Court adds that the power to nullify legislative or executive action does not make the judiciary superior to the other branches; it is simply a necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose of a case or controversy properly before the court.

Doctrine

First, the Electoral Tribunals are the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members, and that function is judicial in character. Members drawn from the legislature sit as impartial judges, not as party representatives, once they assume their duties.

Second, the House of Representatives may not withdraw a member's nomination or rescind his election to the Tribunal in order to change the outcome of a pending contest. Such action is a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.

Third, the political-question doctrine does not shield legislative action from review where a constitutional grant of authority is limited and private rights are affected. Under Section 1, Article VIII, the courts have the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, annulled the resolution of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the election of Congressman Camasura as a member of the Electoral Tribunal, and ordered his reinstatement, with the restraining order made permanent.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the House cannot reorganize the Electoral Tribunal to defeat a decision already reached, for the Tribunal is the sole judge and its members sit as impartial judges, not party agents. Examiners use this case on the political-question doctrine, on judicial review of legislative acts, and on the independence of the Electoral Tribunals.