Coseteng v. Mitra

Coseteng v. Mitra

G.R. No. 86649 July 12, 1990

Griño-Aquino, J.

Facts:

                The congressional elections of May 11, 1987 resulted in the election to the House of Representatives of the candidates of diverse political parties such as the PDP-Laban, Lakas ng Bansa (LB), Liberal Party (LP), NP-Unido, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL), Panaghiusa, Kababaihan Para sa Inang Bayan (KAIBA), and some independents. Petitioner Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng was the only candidate elected under the banner of KAIBA.

The House of Representatives, upon nomination by the Majority Floor Leader, Cong. Francisco Sumulong, elected from the Coalesced Majority, eleven (11) out of twelve (12) congressmen to represent the House in the Commission on Appointments.

Upon nomination of the Minority Floor Leader, the House elected Honorable Roque Ablan, Jr., KBL, as the twelfth member of the Commission on Appointments, representing the Coalesced Minority in the House.

A year later, the “Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino” (LDP, for brevity) was organized as a political party. As 158 out of 202 members of the House of Representatives formally affiliated with the LDP, the House committees, including the House representation in the Commission on Appointments, had to be reorganized.

Petitioner Coseteng wrote a letter to Speaker Ramon Mitra requesting that as representative of KAIBA, she be appointed as a member of the Commission on Appointments and House Electoral Tribunal. Her request was endorsed by nine (9) congressmen, namely, Hon. Lally Laurel-Trinidad, Bonifacio Gillego, Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Gerardo Cabochan, Jose D. Aspiras, Oscar Santos, Eduardo N. Joson, Antonio H. Cerilles and Isacio Pelaez.

The House of Representatives, on motion of the Majority Floor Leader and over the objection of Cong. Raul A. Daza, LP, revised the House majority membership in the Commission on Appointments to conform with the new political alignments by replacing Rep. Raul A. Daza, LP, with Rep. Luis C. Singson, LDP.

                Congresswoman Coseteng and her party, the KAIBA, filed a Petition for Extraordinary Legal Writs praying the Supreme Court to declare as null and void the election of respondent Ablan, Verano-Yap, Romero, Cuenco, Mercado, Bandon, Cabochan, Imperial, Lobregat, Beltran, Locsin, and Singson, as members of the Commission on Appointments, to enjoin them from acting as such and to enjoin also the other respondents from recognizing them as members of the Commission on Appointments on the theory that their election to that Commission violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation because:

1)       the New Majority (158 LDP members out of the 202 members of the House) is entitled to only nine (9) seats out of the twelve to be filled by the House;

2)      the members representing the political parties, or coalitions thereof, must be nominated by their respective political parties or coalitions;

3)       the nomination and election of respondent Verano-Yap by the respondents as representative of the minority was clearly invalid; and

4)      that similarly invalid was the retention of respondent Ablan as Minority member in the Commission because he was neither nominated nor elected as such by the minority party or parties in the House.

Issue:

                whether the members of the House in the Commission on Appointments were chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties therein as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution

Held:

                Yes. The revision of the House representation in the Commission on Appointments is based on proportional representation of the political parties therein as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

There is no merit in the petitioner’s contention that the House members in the Commission on Appointments should have been nominated and elected by their respective political parties. The petition itself shows that they were nominated by their respective floor leaders in the House. They were elected by the House (not by their party) as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution. The validity of their election to the Commission on Appointments — eleven (11) from the Coalesced Majority and one from the minority — is unassailable.

Held:

                No. The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts, without any action on the part of respondent tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.

                Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, its orders upon all questions pertaining to the cause are orders within its jurisdiction, and however erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by certiorari. This rule more appropriately applies to respondent HRET whose independence as a constitutional body has been upheld in many cases.