104 - Pimentel, Et. Al. vs. HRET, en BANC, GR No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002 - Digested Case

G.R. No.
141489
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE,

LEONARDO Q. MONTEMAYOR, CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES and
PATRICIA M. SARENAS, petitioners,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JUSTICES JOSE A.R. MELO,
VICENTE V. MENDOZA and JOSE C. VITUG, and REPRESENTATIVES ASANI S.
TAMMANG, RAUL M. GONZALES, DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, DANTON Q.
BUESER,1 NAPOLEON R. BERATIO, SIMEON E. GARCIA and SPEAKER MANUEL B.
VILLAR, JR., respondents.
-----------------------------
G.R. No. 141490
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE,

LEONARDO Q. MONTEMAYOR, CRESENTE C. PAEZ, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES and
PATRICIA M. SARENAS, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, its Chair, SENATE PRESIDENT BLAS F. OPLE, and
Members, namely: SENATORS FRANKLIN M. DRILON, RENATO L. CAYETANO, LOREN
LEGARDA-LEVISTE, ROBERT Z. BARBERS, ANNA DOMINIQUE M.L. COSETENG,
GREGORIO HONASAN, RAMON B. MAGSAYSAY, JR., TERESA AQUINO-ORETA, RAUL S.
ROCO, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, VICENTE C. SOTTO III and REPRESENTATIVES LUIS A.
ASISTIO, EMILIO R. ESPINOSA, JR., WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, MANUEL M. GARCIA,
SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, ANTONIO M. DIAZ, FAUSTINO S. DY, JR., PACIFICO M.
FAJARDO, ERNESTO F. HERRERA, NUR G. JAAFAR, CARLOS M. PADILLA, ROGELIO M.
SARMIENTO and SPEAKER MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR., respondents.
Facts:
On May, 1998, a national election was held and for the first-time elected party list group and
nominees would become a member of the house. Proclaimed winners were 14 party-list from 13
organization. Subsequently, the House constituted its HRET and CA contingent by electing its
representatives to these two constitutional bodies. In practice, the procedure involves the nomination by
the political parties of House members who are to occupy seats in the HRET and the CA. From available
records, it does not appear that after the May 11, 1998 elections the party-list groups in the House
nominated any of their representatives to the HRET or the CA.
On January 18, 2000, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. wrote two letters addressed to then
Senate President Blas F. Ople, as Chairman of the CA, and to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Jose A. R. Melo, as Chairman of the HRET. The letters requested Senate President Ople and Justice Melo
to cause the restructuring of the CA and the HRET, respectively, to include party-list representatives to
conform to Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. On February 2, 2000, petitioners
filed a Petitions for Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary Injunction (with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order) against the HRET, its Chairman and Members, and against the CA, its Chairman and
Members. Petitioners contend that, under the Constitution and the Party-List System Act, party-list
representatives should have 1 at least 1 seat in the HRET, and 2 seats in the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not the HRET and the CA constitute a grave abuse of discretion for refusal to
reconstitute themselves to include party list representatives.
Held:
No, the HRET and the CA did not constitute a grave abuse of discretion for refusal to reconstitute
themselves to include party list representatives. The court ruled that, 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 of Congress 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. The court also find no grave abuse in the action or lack of action by the HRET and the
CA in response to the letters of Senator Pimentel. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and their internal rules, the HRET and the CA are bereft of any power to reconstitute
themselves.
The consolidated petition for prohibition and mandamus is dismissed.

104 - Pimentel, Et. Al. vs. HRET, en BANC, GR No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002 - Digested Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

104 - Pimentel, Et. Al. vs. HRET, en BANC, GR No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002 - Digested Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

104 - Pimentel, Et. Al. vs. HRET, en BANC, GR No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002 - Digested Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE,

G.R. No. 141490

SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. REPRESENTATIVES MELVYN D. EBALLE,

The consolidated petition for prohibition and mandamus is dismissed.

You might also like