EN BANC

[G.R. No. 180055. July 31, 2009.]

FRANKLIN M. DRILON as President and in representation of the

LIBERAL PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES (LP), AND HON. JOSEPH
EMILIO A. ABAYA, HON. WAHAB M. AKBAR, HON. MARIA EVITA R.
ARAGO, HON. PROCESSO J. ALCALA, HON. ROZZANO RUFINO
BIAZON, HON. MARY MITZI CAJAYON, HON. FREDENIL H. CASTRO,
HON. GLENN ANG CHONG, HON. SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, HON.
PAUL RUIZ DAZA, HON. ANTONIO A. DEL ROSARIO, HON. CECILIA S.
LUNA, HON. MANUEL M. MAMBA, HON. HERMILANDO I.
MANDANAS, HON. ALVIN SANDOVAL, HON. LORENZO R. TAÑADA
III, HON. REYNALDO S. UY, HON. ALFONSO V. UMALI JR., HON.
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO , petitioners, vs . HON. JOSE DE VENECIA
JR. in his of cial capacity as Speaker of the House of
Representatives; HON. ARTHUR D. DEFENSOR, SR., in his of cial
capacity as Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives,
HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR, in his of cial capacity as ex-of cio
Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, ATTY. MA. GEMMA
D. ASPIRAS, in her of cial capacity as Secretary of the Commission
on Appointments, HON. PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, HON. EDGARDO
C. ZIALCITA, HON. ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO, HON. JOSE CARLOS V.
LACSON, HON. EILEEN R. ERMITA-BUHAIN, HON. JOSE V. YAP, HON.
RODOLFO T. ALBANO III, HON. EDUARDO R. GULLAS, HON.
CONRADO M. ESTRELLA III, HON. RODOLFO "OMPONG" PLAZA,
HON. EMMYLOU J. TALIÑO-MENDOZA and HON. EMMANUEL JOEL
J. VILLANUEVA, in their individual of cial capacities as "elected"
members of the Commission on Appointments , respondents.

[G.R. No. 183055. July 31, 2009.]

SENATOR MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL , petitioner, vs.

SENATOR MANUEL VILLAR in his capacity as Senate President and
Ex-Of cio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments,
REPRESENTATIVE PROSPERO NOGRALES in his capacity as the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and THE COMMISSION
ON APPOINTMENTS , respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES , J : p

In August 2007, the Senate and the House of Representatives elected their
respective contingents to the Commission on Appointments (CA).
The contingent in the Senate to the CA was composed of the following senators
with their respective political parties:
Sen. Maria Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal — PDP-Laban
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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

The members of the contingent of the House of Representatives in the CA and

their respective political parties were as follows:
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

In the second week of August 2007, petitioners in the rst 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 rst petition, Representative Tañada, requested from the House of
Representatives leadership 2 one seat in the CA for the Liberal Party. 3 To his request,
Representative Neptali Gonzales II 4 begged the indulgence of the Liberal Party "to
allow the Legal Department to make a study on the matter". 5 HATICc

In a separate move, Representative Tañada, 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 with the provision of Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution. 6 Representative Tañada
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 Tañada 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 Tañada 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 ling on October 31, 2007 of the rst 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 of cio
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. 1 0
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. 1 1 (Italics in the
original)

And it prays that this Court:

a. Immediately upon the ling 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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;
xxx xxx xxx

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 recon gure 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 of ce 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. 1 2

Respondents Senator Villar and CA Secretary Aspiras led their Comment 13 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. 1 4 (Emphasis in
the original)

Then Speaker De Venecia and Representative Defensor led their Comment and
Opposition 1 5 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. 1 6

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,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 THEREFORE, NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO INSTITUTE THE
INSTANT PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO. 1 7
III. THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO EXHAUST THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO THEM. 1 8

IV. THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE

AFFILIATION OF THE MEMBERS NEED TO BE SETTLED IN A
TRIAL. 1 9 (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. 2 0

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 ve (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. 2 1

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". 2 2
By letter of May 13, 2008, Senator Madrigal again wrote Senator Villar as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 2 3

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 CA's composition is resolved by the leadership of
the Commission", 2 4 and that without any such resolution, she would be forced to
invoke Section 20 of the CA rules against every of cial whose con rmation would be
submitted to the body for deliberation. 2 5 IaEHSD

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. 2 6
By letter of May 28, 2008, Senator Villar advised Senator Madrigal as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
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" . . ., 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" . . . .
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.
Arroy o 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. 2 7 (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. 2 8
Senator Madrigal thereafter led 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-Of cio Chairman of the CA, Speaker Nograles, and the CA, 2 9
alleging 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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 THIS
HONORABLE COURT; and

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. 3 0 (Emphasis in the original)

She thus prayed for the

1. . . . issu[ance of] a temporary restraining order/a writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin Respondents from proceeding with their illegal and
unlawful actions as of cials and members of the Commission on
Appointments which composition is unconstitutional, pending resolution
of the instant Petition;
2. Declar[ation that] the composition of the Commission on Appointments [is]
null and void insofar as it violates the proportional party representation
requirement mandated by Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution;
3. Issu[ance of] a Writ of Prohibition against respondents Senate President
Manuel Villar, Speaker Prospero Nograles and Secretary Gemma Aspiras to
desist from further proceeding with their illegal and unlawful actions as
of cers of the Commission on Appointments, the composition of which is
null and void for being violative of the proportional party representation
requirement under Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution;
and
4. Issu[ance of] a Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents Senate
President Manuel Villar, Speaker Prospero Nograles and Secretary Gemma
Aspiras to reorganize and reconstitute the Commission on Appointments in
accordance with the 1987 Constitution. 3 1

The Court consolidated G.R. No. 180055 3 2 and G.R. No. 183055 on July 1, 2008.
Petitioners in the rst petition, G.R. No. 180055, later led on August 15, 2008 a
Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw the Petition, 3 3 alleging that with the
designation of Representative Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. of the Liberal Party as a member of
the House of Representatives contingent in the CA in replacement of Representative
Eduardo M. Gullas of KAMPI, their petition had become moot and academic.
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.

II.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 3 4 (Emphasis in the original;
underscoring supplied)

In his Comment and Opposition 3 5 led on September 3, 2008, Speaker Nograles

proffered the following arguments: DECcAS

A. 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. 3 6

B. 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

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. 3 8
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 rst 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. 3 9 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 personal and substantial interest to confer on her/it locus standi.
Senator Madrigal's 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. 4 0
Senator Villar's 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: 4 1
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 rst wrote to the Senate President, requesting that the Commission on
Appointments be restructured to conform to the constitutional provision on
proportional representation. . . . Without awaiting nal determination of the
question . . ., Pimentel led 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 de ned 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 ll 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 de ned
limits, who among their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of
each chamber's respective electoral tribunal.
xxx xxx xxx

Thus, even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a

suf cient 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 rst 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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 rst 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. 4 2 (Italics, underscoring, and emphasis supplied by
Representative Nograles) AIHECa

It bears noting that Senator Villar had already transmitted original copies of
Senator Madrigal's letters to the Senate Secretary for inclusion in the Order of Business
of the Session of the Senate to address her concerns. Senator Madrigal's ling of the
second petition is thus premature.
Senator Madrigal's 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, 4 3 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 af liations, 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 G RANTE D. The Petition is WI THDRAWN. The Petition in G.R. No.
183055 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Carpio, Ynares-Santiago, Corona, Chico-Nazario, Nachura,
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

1.Vide rollo (G.R. No. 180055), pp. 23-24.

2.Vide id. at 14.
3.Ibid.

4.In what capacity he replied to Representative Tañada is not mentioned in the rollo.
5.Rollo (G.R. No. 180055), p. 14.
6.Id. at 25.
7.Ibid.

8.Id. at 14-15.
9.Id. at 53.
10.Id. at 3-44.
11.Id. at 26.
12.Id. at 35-36.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 13.Id. at 69-77.
14.Id. at 71, 73.
15.Id. at 111-181.
16.Id. at 113.
17.Id. at 125.

18.Id. at 133.
19.Id. at 137.
20.Rollo (G.R. No. 183055), pp. 34-35.
21.Id. at 37.
22.Id. at 37-38.

23.Id. at 39.
24.Id. at 42.
25.Ibid.
26.Id. at 43.
27.Id. at 44.

28.Id. at 46.
29.Id. at 3-29.

30.Id. at 12.

31.Id. at 26-27.
32.Id. at 106.

33.Id. at 245-257.

34.Id. at 133.
35.Id. at 158-184.

36.Id. at 163.
37.Id. at 164.

38.Id. at 174.

39.Vide David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160, 327.
40.Sen. Pimentel, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 441 Phil. 492, 503 (2002).

41.Id. at 497-498, 500-503.

42.Rollo (G.R. No. 183055), pp. 175-176.

43.Id. at 18-19.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com