612 Phil. 266
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Sen. Maria Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal PDP-Laban Sen. Joker Arroyo KAMPI Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano Lakas-CMD Sen. Panfilo Lacson UNO Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada PMP Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile PMP Sen. Loren Legarda NPC Sen. Richard Gordon Lakas-CMD Sen. Mar Roxas LP Sen. Lito Lapid Lakas-CMD Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago PRP
Rep. Prospero C. Nograles Lakas-CMD Rep. Eduardo C. Zialcita Lakas-CMD Rep. Abdullah D. Dimaporo Lakas-CMD Rep. Jose Carlos V. Lacson Lakas-CMD Rep. Eileen R. Ermita-Buhain Lakas-CMD Rep. Jose V. Yap Lakas-CMD Rep. Rodolfo T. Albano III KAMPI Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas KAMPI Rep. Rodolfo "Ompong" G. Plaza NPC Rep. Conrado M. Estrella NPC Rep. Emmylou J. Taliño-Mendoza NP Rep. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva CIBAC Party List
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)
- 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;
- 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;
x x x x- 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;
- 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;
- Oust the affected respondents, whoever they are, who usurped, intruded into and have unlawfully held positions in the Commission on Appointments and
- 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]
- 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.
- 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)
- THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF DO NOT CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION THAT WILL JUSTIFY THE GRANT OF THE EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS.[16]
- 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]
- THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO EXHAUST THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THEM.[18]
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- If Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano is now NP, he still can sit in the CA representing NP.[20]
- 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;
- 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;
- Liberal Party is not represented in the Commission on Appointments although it is entitled to one (1) nominee; and
- 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]
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]
x x x x
Noting your position that you will not continue to participate in the proceedings of the CA ... "until the constitutional issue of the CA's 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)
- . . . IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED PROPORTIONAL PARTY REPRESENTATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS;
- . . . IN CONTINUOUSLY CONDUCTING HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPOINTMENTS DESPITE THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS' UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMPOSITION WHICH MUST BE PROHIBITED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT; and
- . . . 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)
I.
Petitioner has no standing to file [the] petition.II.
Petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort. Each House of Congress has the sole function of reconstituting or changing the composition of its own contingent to the CA.III.
Petitioner is estopped.IV.
Presumption of regularity in the conduct of official functions.V.
The extraordinary remedies of Prohibition and Mandamus and the relief of a TRO are not available to the Petitioner.[34] (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
- WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE PETITIONS HAVE ALREADY BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC UPON THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE ALFONSO V. UMALI, JR., MEMBER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY, TO THE HOUSE CONTINGENT TO THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS.[36]
- THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF DO NOT CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION THAT WILL JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE
HONORABLE COURT AND THE GRANT OF THE EXTRAORDINARY WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION.[37]- 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]
- 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)
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".
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 chamber's respective electoral tribunal.x x xx
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, petitioner's 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 Petitioner's 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 Madrigal's affair.[42] (Italics, underscoring, and emphasis supplied by Representative Nograles)