Firdausi Smail Abbas VS Tribunal

FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, ET AL.
, PETITIONERS,
VS.
THE SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 83767 OCTOBER 27, 1988
FACTS:
On October 9, 1987, the Abbas et al filed before the SET an

election contest docketed against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were
proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11, 1987 congressional elections by the
COMELEC. The SET was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the
Supreme Court and six (6) Senators. Abbas later on filed for the disqualification of
the 6 senator members from partaking in the said election protest on the ground
that all of them are interested parties to said case. Abbas argue that considerations
of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process imperatively require
the mass disqualification sought. To accommodate the proposed disqualification,
Abbas suggested the following amendment: Tribunal’s Rules (Section 24)
requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolutions of
whatever nature is a proviso that where more than four (4) members are
disqualified, the remaining members shall constitute a quorum, if not less than
three (3) including one (1) Justice, and may adopt resolutions by majority vote
with no abstentions. Obviously tailored to fit the situation created by the petition
for disqualification, this would, in the context of that situation, leave
the resolution of the contest to the only three members who would remain, all
Justices of this Court, whose disqualification is not sought.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abbas’ proposal could be given due weight
HELD:
The most fundamental objection to such proposal lies in the plain terms and
intent of the Constitution itself which, in its Article VI, Section 17, creates the
Senate Electoral Tribunal, ordains its composition and defines its jurisdiction and
powers.
“Sec. 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 the 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.”
It is quite clear that in providing for a SET 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.
The legislative component herein cannot be totally excluded from participation in
the resolution of senatorial election contests, without doing violence to the spirit
and intent of the Constitution. It is not to be misunderstood in saying that no
Senator-Member of the SET may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting in
judgment on any case before said Tribunal. 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 SC is saying is that in the light of the
Constitution, the SET cannot legally function as such; absent its entire membership
of Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-
Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest. The
charge that the respondent Tribunal gravely abused its discretion in its disposition
of the incidents referred to must therefore fail. In the circumstances, it acted well
within law and principle in dismissing the petition for disqualification or inhibition
filed by herein petitioners. The instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for
lack of merit.

Firdausi Smail Abbas VS Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Firdausi Smail Abbas VS Tribunal

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

Firdausi Smail Abbas VS Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, ET AL.

On October 9, 1987, the Abbas et al filed before the SET an

Whether or not Abbas’ proposal could be given due weight

It is quite clear that in providing for a SET to be staffed by both Justices of

You might also like