ABAYON v. HRETandCONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN, JR., v. HRETThese two cases are about the authority of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to pass upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list groups that won seats in the lower house of Congress. IssueThe common issue presented in these two cases is:Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan as nominees of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list organizations, respectively, who took the seats at the House of Representatives that such organizations won in the 2007 elections.

Held:

What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution9cralaw provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are "elected members" of the House of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.10cralawThe Court holds that respondent HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it dismissed the petitions for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list but upheld its jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.

ARNAULT VS. NAZARENOFACTS:On February 27, 1950, the Senate adopted a resolution creating a special committee to investigate on the purchase by the government of the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates owned by Ernest Burt as represented by Jean Arnault.The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the government.The special committee called and examined among other witness, Jean Arnault. However, for the latters refusal to answer some of the questions propounded on him, the name of the person to whom he gave the money as well as answer to other pertinent questions in connection therewith, the Senate resolved to imprison him until such time as he decided to answer relevant questions put to him in connection with the investigation of a government transaction.ISSUE: Whether or not the Senate has authority to punish petitioner for contempt.HELD:The Supreme Court said yes considering that he questions were pertinent to the pursuance of the Senate Resolution.The Supreme Court also held that the offender could be imprisoned indefinitely by the State, it being a continuing body, provided that the punishment did not become so long as to violate due process.

Tobias v. AbalosFacts:Petitioners as taxpayers and residents of Mandaluyong assail the constitutionality of RA 7675: An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of MandaluyongIt has the following effects:1. Converts the city of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city2. Creates a new legislative district for Mandaluyong3. Leaves San Juan in the old legislative district which used to be composed of S.J. and Mand.Tthe bill was sponsored by the congressman of the legislative district covering the two municipalities, Hon. Ronaldo Zamora. In a plebiscite pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991, the residents of mandaluyong affirmed the conversion.Issue: According to petitioners, the law is unconstitutional because:1. It violates the one subject-one bill rule by making a new congressional district along with the conversion.2. It resulted in the increase of the members of the House of Representatives to more than that provided in the constitution. 3. It was enacted not pursuant to a census to show that the municipality has attained the minimum population requirement. It has the effect of preempting the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts pursuant to Sec. 5(4).4.It preempts the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts.Aside from the above constitutional arguments, it is invalid because:1. The people of San Juan were not made to participate in the plebiscite. It involves a change in their legislative district and so they must be included.

Held:1. The creation of a new congressional district is merely in compliance with the one city-one representative mandate in Sec. 5(3). And contrary to petitioners assertion, thecreation of a separate congressional district forMandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct fromthe subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized citybut is its natural and logical consequence. A liberalconstruction of the one title- one subject rule is in order.It should be given a practical rather than a technicalconstruction. It should be sufficient compliance if the titleexpresses the general subject and all the provisions aregermane to that general subject.

2. The 250 member limit is not absolute. This can be seen from the phrase unless otherwise fixed by law. The composition of Congress may thus be increased if Congress itself mandates so through legislative enactment.

3. As to the contention that there is no census to show that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained the minimum requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to justify their separation into two legislative districts, the same does not suffice to strike down the validity of RA 7675. The act enjoys the presumption of having passed through the regular congressional processes, including due consideration by the members of Congress of the minimum requirements for the establishment of separate legislative districts.4. As to the contention that the act preempts Congress right to reapportion legislative districts, this argument borders on the absurd. It was Congress itself that enacted the law. Congress cannot preempt itself on a right which pertains to itself. 5. The principal subject of the plebiscite was the conversion of mandaluyong. The matter of separate district representation was only ancillary thereto. The inhabitants of San Juan were properly excluded as they had nothing to do with the change of status of neighboring Mandaluyong. 6. The law has the effect of diminishing the constituency of Rep. Zamora. This could not be in favor of him, and is therefore not gerrymandering. Dispositive Portion:WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

MARIANO, JR. VS. COMELECFACTS:R.A. 7854, which aims to convert Makati into a city, is assailed as being unconstitutional on the grounds that R.A. 7854 aims to increase membership of the House which the Constitution fixes and that R.A. 7854 being a special law cannot change members of the Houses.ISSUE: Whether or not the conversion of Makati into a city is constitutional.HELD:Yes. The Supreme Court held that as was already decided by the Supreme Court in Tobias vs. Abalos, the Constitution provides that the compositions of the House should not be more than 250 members, UNLESS otherwise provided by law. The natural result in the creation of a new legislative from a special law whose purpose is to convert a municipality into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.

US VS. PONSThe respondent, together with Beliso and Lasarte were charged with illegal importation of opium. Pons and Beliso were tried separately on motion of counsel. Lasarte had not yet been arrested. Each was found guilty of the crime, charged and sentenced accordingly. Both appealed. Beliso later withdrew his appeal and the judgment as to him has become final. Respondents motion alleged to prove that the last day of the special session of the Philippine Legislature for 1914 was the 28th day of February, that Act No.2381 under which Pons must be punished if found guilty, was not passed nor approved on the 28th of February but on March 1 of that year. Also, counsel for Pons alleged that the Assemblys clock was stopped on February 18, 1914 at midnight and left so until the determination of the discussion of all pending matters among which was Act NO. 2381. to prove aid allegations, counsel argued the court to go beyond the proceedings of the Legislature as recorded in the journals.ISSUE: Whether or not the court may go beyond the recitals of legislature journals or just take judicial notice of said journals for the purpose of determining the date of adjournment when such journal are clear and explicitly.HELD:YES. From their very nature and object the records of the Legislature are as important as those of the judiciary. And to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine government was brought into existence, to invade and coordinate and independent department of the Government and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.

PHILCONSA VS. GIMENEZThe Supreme Court was called upon in to decide the grave and fundamental problem of the constitutionality of RA 3836 insofar as the same allows retirement gratuity and commutation of vacation and sick leave to Senators and Representatives and to the elective officials of both houses (of Congress).The constitutionality of the law is assailed on the ground that the provision for the retirement of the members and certain officers of Congress is not expressed in the title of the bill, in violation of the Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or Not RA 3836 violates the Constitutional provision that every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject, which shall be expressed in the title thereof.HELD:YES. Under RA 3836, amending CA 186, as amended by RA Nos. 660 and 3096, the retirement benefits are granted to members of the GSIS who have rendered at least twenty years of service regardless of age. This provision is related and germane to the subject of CA 186. On the other hand, the succeeding paragraph of RA 3836 refers to members of Congress and to elective officers thereof who are not members of the GSIS. To provide retirement benefits, therefore, for these officials would relate to subject matter, not germane to CA 186.

Jimenez v. CabangbangFacts Cabangbang published an open letter to the President, when congress wasnt in session, saying that there was an insidious plan to build-up the Defense Secretarys image for presidency, to stage a coup detat, and to assuage the President through a loyalty parade to rally the AFP behind Gen. Arellano. Petitioners were named as persons under the control of the planners.Held The communication wasnt a debate or speech. It was published when Congress wasnt in sesion. Cabangbang published them not in line with his discharge of duties as congressman and as a member of his committee. The letter isnt libelous because it doesnt state that the respondents were the planners.Puyat v. De GuzmanAssemblyman Estanislao Fernandez, first appeared as counsel for the respondent Acero, in the Securities and Exchange Commission, an administrative body. Because this wasprohibited, he bought 10 shares of stock and intervened in the SEC case. The SEC granted the motion for intervention. But the Court held that is a form of indirect appearance as counsel in an administrative body prohibited by the Constitution.ABBAS VS. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL On October 1987, the petitioners filed before the respondent Senate Electoral Tribunal an election protest against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect. Subsequently, the petitioners filed with the respondent Tribunal a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from the hearing and resolution of the aforementioned case, as respondents therein. The petitioners urged the contest to be decided by only 3 members of the Tribunal.ISSUE: Whether or not the Senators-Members of the Electoral Tribunal may be compelled to inhibit themselves from hearing the contest.HELD:NO. It seems quite clear to us that in thus providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members of the Senate, the Constitution intended that both those Judicial and Legislative components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators.Every member of the tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment. What we are merely saying is that in the light of the Constitution, the Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such, absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment of its rules can confer on the 3 Justice-Members along the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election protest.BONDOC VS. PINEDAMarciano Pineda of LDP won against his rival Dr. Emigdio Bondoc of NP causing the latter to file a protest in the HRET. A decision had been reached in which Bondoc won over Pineda by a margin of 23 votes. Hence, the LDP members in the tribunal insisted on a re- appreciation and recount of the ballots cast in some precincts resulting to the increase of Bondocs lead over Pineda to 107 votes. Congressman Camasura coted with the SC Justices and Congressman Cerilles to proclaim Bondoc as the winner of the contest. Camasura later on revealed to his chief, notified the Chairman of the Tribunal to withdraw the nomination and to rescind the election of Camasura to the HRET and seeks to cancel the promulgation of the tribunals decision in Bondoc v. Pineda.ISSUE: Whether or not the House of Representatives could change its representatives in the HRET at the request of the dominant party.HELD:NO. If the HRET would reserve the interest of the party in power, the independence of the Electoral Tribunal, as embodied in the Constitution, will no longer be protected. The resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from the HRET for disloyalty to the LDP, because he cast his vote in the favor of NPs candidate, is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the HRET to the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc.T o sanction such interference by the House of Representatives in the work of the HRET would reduce the Tribunal to a mere tool for the aggrandizement of the party in power (LDP) which the 3 Justices of the SC and the lone NP member would be powerless to stop. A minority party candidate may as well abandon all hope at the threshold of the tribunal.As judges, the members of the Tribunal must be nonpartisan. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality and independence even independence from the political party to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to a party and breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the Tribunal. In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the Tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion, an injustice, and aviolation of the Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion against Congressman Camasura is therefore null and void.

Banat v. COMELECQuick Facts: Veterans formula is declared unconstitutional and replaced w/ a new formula.The initial step is to rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they each received. Then the ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the system. All parties with at least two percent of the total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be considered in the computation of additional seats. The party receiving the highest number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the first partyThe next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. Since the distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes

# of votes of 1st party -------------------------- = X

If X, without rounding it off is equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall. If X, without a rounding off is equal to or greater than four percent, but less than six percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. And if X is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be entitled to any additional seatThe next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled to, based on proportional representation:

# of votes of Additional concerned partySeats for = ---------------------------- x Concerned party # of votes of 1st party# of additional seats allocated tothe 1st party

Adaza v. PacanaIncompatible & Forbidden OfficesART. VI, 13No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.Adaza v. PacanaAdaza, Governor of Misamis Oriental, won a seat in the Batasang Pambansa. Vice-Governor Pacana also ran for a seat in the BP but he lost. Pacana took the position of Governor that Adaza vacated when he got elected to the BP. Adaza went to the SC claiming that he should be allowed to be a BP member and Governor at the same time, following the practice in the Parliaments of the UK, France, and NZ. He also contends that Pacana should not even be considered a Vice- Governor anymore, alleging that Pacana ipso facto6 resigned from the position when he ran for the BP, thus he should only be a regular citizen now. SC rules in favor of Pacana, dismisses Adazas petition. SC bases its ruling on the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 10 Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution as well as BP 697. Held:Adaza cannot be BP member and Misamis Oriental Governor at the same time.

Suanes v. Disbursing Officer of the SenateFACTS: This is a petition for mandamus filed by the petitioner Nicetas Suanes to compel the Chief Accountant of the Senate of the Philippines to pay him his salary as secretary to Sen. Ramon Diokno, a member of Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), in accordance to the appointment issued by the Chairman of SET. There were two conflicting appointments: (1) appointment by the President of the Senate to be Dioknos secretary for P200/month; and (2) appointment by the Chairman of SET to the same post for P3,600/annum or P300/month. The conflict arose when Suanes presented the voucher for P300 to the Chief Accountant and Disbursing Officer of the Senate, where the latter refused to pay Suanes the amount of P300 because the Senate Presidents appointment was allegedly fixed at the rate of P200/month. ISSUES: 2. a. WON the Electoral Tribunals are mere agencies of the Philippine Congress or they are entities distinct from and independent of the Philippine Congress and b. Which of the two conflicting appointments should prevail HELD: 1. In a previous case, the court held that Electoral Tribunals are independent constitutional creations with the specific powers and functions of passing upon all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of Service law.members of the Congress, devoid of partisan influence.The purpose of the Constitution was to transfer in its totality all the powers previously exercised by the budget corresponding to the Senate, does not and cannot legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its members to an independent and impartial tribunal. Senate for both institutions are independent from each other. Thus, ETs are sovereign over their internal affairs as areeach of the other powers of government over their respective domains. Moreover, such independence is not limited to their judicial functions but also to the selection of their administrative personnel. The inclusion of the provisions creating the SET in Section 11 of Article VI of the Consti (Legislative Department) cannot be inferred to mean that said tribunals are intended parts of the Congress. This should be understood only that both houses of Congress are each provided with independent constitutional organs to settle issues pertaining to Congress which the Congress cannot adequately decide. President Manuel Roxas, who was a prominent member of the Constitutional Convention, also supported the independent control of ET of their personnel and recommended that in the next Budget, an appropriation for ET should be unattached and separate from the outlays of Congress.

2. Consequently, the employees of an ET are its own, and not of the Senate nor of the House of Reps nor of any other entity and it stands to reason that the appointment, the supervision and the control over said employees rest wholly within the Tribunal itself.Par 4, of the Rules of the ET for the Senate provides other things that the Chairman thereof shall have the power to appoint the employees of the Tribunal with the approval of the tribunal, and in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service law. The fact that the appropriation of the SET is included in the budget corresponding to the Senate, does not and cannot legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of mean that the employees of the Senate for both institutions are independent from each other. Under Sec 3 of the Appropriations Act for 194815, the power of the Senate President is only limited to affect those appropriations for the Senate and not those appropriations forthe Senate Electoral Tribunal. The senate president is not supposed to have power of the expenses of the SET to protect the latters independence.JUDGMENT: The writ of Mandamus is GRANTED.

Bondoc v. PinedaIn the local elections, Pineda, member of LDP was declared winner of the 4th district of Pampanga over Bondoc of NP. Bondoc filed an election protest in the House of Representatives Election Tribunal or HRET which is composed of three SC Justices and 6 Representatives based on the proportion of the political parties. Bondoc was declared winner by 23 votes.It was urged that the ballots be reopened and it turned out that Bondocs margin of victory increased to 107. Because of this, HRET proclaimed Bondoc the winner by a 5-4 vote. (Here comes the hot issue.) Surprisingly, Camasura, a member of LDP voted in favor of rival Bondoc and against fellow member Pineda. When the LDP Secretary-General found out (from Camasura himself), Camasura was removed from the party (allegedly for trying to form a new party).LDP urged that the HRET members be revamped since Bondoc was no longer part of the LDP and since this no longer reflected the proportion of the parties. SC members also wanted to leave since the case had been tainted by political factors.Bondoc filed for certiorari. Congress cannot interfere nor influence HRET. HRET is the sole judge of elections. Being a judicial body, it must be unbiased and non-partisan. Camasuras expulsion was illegal and null and void as he had security of tenure. A party may expel a member for disloyalty but there must be proof that the member associated with another party.CARLOS CUNANAN vs. JORGE TAN, JR.

Facts:

Petitioner sought to nullify the ad interim appointment of Jorge Tan Jr as acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration. Cunanan was formerly appointed in the same position but was later on rejected by the Commision of Appointment prompting the President to replace him with Jorge Tan Jr immediately without his consent.

Filing the quo warranto proceeding to the Supreme Court, Cunanan questions the validity of the convened Commission of Appointments citing irregularities as to the numbers of members comprising the same.

Issue:

WON the appointment of Jorge Tan Jr is valid.

Ruling:

With the reorganization of the Commission of Appointment, it was ruled that such is a power vested in the Congress as they deem it proper taking into consideration the proportionate numbers of the members of the Commission of Appointment members as to their political affiliations. However, with their reorganization, this affected a third party's right which they rejected as its result. To correct this, the Supreme Court declared the reinstatement of the petitioner and ordered respondent to vacate and turn over the office in contention.

Cunanan v Tan case in point72 seats were won by the Nacionalista, 29 to Liberal, and 1 by independent. Thus the CA representation was 8 from NP and 4 from LP. 25 members of the NP joined the LP to form the Allied Majority. 3 NP reps to the CA were replaced by 3 members of the Allied MajorityCunanan questioned his displacement from the CA on the ground that the CA itself was invalidly constituted and if NP wereThe Court said that the Allied Majority was a temporary combination since the transferees didn't disafilliate from the NP. The reorganization was invalid bec it wasn't based on proportional representationo A shifting of votes at a given time doesn't suffice to authorize a reorganization of the CA membership. Otherwise, the CA may have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from 1 side to another in the HOR. Supervening event the COMELEC en banc granted the petition of the LDP for registration as a political party while this case was pending The political stability theory of Daza was untenable bec if this were a requirement, then newly formed parties would be absolutely precluded from electing its their representatives in the CA, a situation that the Consti doesnt contemplate. 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

Coseteng vs. Mitra

PERTINENT LAW FROM THE CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE VI, SECTION 18There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, 12 Senators, and 12 Members of the HOR elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations registered under the party list system represented therein. XXXXX- Upon nomination of the Minority Floor Leader, the House added Honorable Roque Ablan, Jr. from KBL as the 12th member of the Commission (representing coalesced minority in the House). A year later, on Sept 16, 1988, the LDP was organized as the new majority party (w/158 out 202 members from the House) and so the House committees, including the House representation in the COA, had to be reorganized. On Oct 8, 1988, petitioner Coseteng wrote a letter to Speaker Ramon Mitra to appoint her, as the representative of KAIBA, to be a member of the COA and HRET. Her request was endorsed by 9 other Congressmen19. On Dec 5, 1988, the House of representatives revised the House majority membership in the COA. Congressman Ablan was still retained as the 12th member representing the House minority. On Feb 1, 1989, Coseteng and her party, KAIBA, filed this Petition for Extraordinary Legal Writs (which may be considered as a petition for quo warranto and injunction) praying this Court to declare null and void the election of a number of congressmen as member of the COA on the theory that their election to that Commission violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation because: a. The New Majority, which is LDP, is entitled to only 9 seats out of the 12 to be filled by the House. b. The members representing the political parties must be nominated by their respective parties. c. The nomination and election of respondent Verano-Yap by the respondents as representative of the minority was clearly invalid d. The retention of Ablan as Minority member in the commission was invalid because he was neither nominated nor elected as such by the minority party or parties in the House. ISSUE/HELD/RATIO:(1) WON the members of the Commission of Appointments were chosen on the basis of proportional representation. YES, they were chosen on the basis of proportional representation as mandated by the Constitution 20 . There are 160 members of the LDP in the House which represent 79% or 80% of the House membership. 80% of the 12 members of the