Abbas v. SET
G.R. No. 83767
October 27, 1988
Gancayco, J.
Facts:
The
petitioners filed before the respondent Tribunal an election contest against 22
candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May
11, 1987 congressional elections by the Commission on Elections. The respondent
Tribunal was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and
six (6) Senators, namely: Senior Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap (Chairman). Associate
Justices Andres R. Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., and Senators Joseph E. Estrada,
Neptali A. Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr., Mamintal A.J. Tamano
and Victor S. Ziga.
The petitioners,
with the exception of Senator Estrada but including Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (who
had been designated Member of the Tribunal replacing Senator Estrada, the latter
having affiliated with the Liberal Party and resigned as the Opposition’s representative
in the Tribunal) filed with the respondent Tribunal a Motion for Disqualification
or Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from the hearing and resolution of
SET case on the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case, as
respondents therein. Before that, Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag, one of the respondents
in the same case, had filed a Petition to Recuse and later a Supplemental Petition
to Recuse the same Senators-Members of the Tribunal on essentially the same ground.
Senator Vicente T. Paterno, another respondent in the same contest, thereafter filed
his comments on both the petitions to recuse and the motion for disqualification
or inhibition. Memoranda on the subject were also filed and oral arguments were
heard by the respondent Tribunal, with the latter afterwards issuing the Resolutions
now complained of.
The petitioners,
in essence, argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play
and due process imperatively require the mass disqualification sought and that the
doctrine of necessity which they perceive to be the foundation petition of the questioned
Resolutions does not rule out a solution both practicable and constitutionally unobjectionable,
namely; the amendment of the respondent Tribunal’s Rules of procedure so as to permit
the contest being decided by only three Members of the Tribunal.
Issue:
whether
the proposed amendment to the 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 is repugnant to Section 17,
Article VI of the Constitution
Held:
No.
On the contrary, proposed mass disqualification, if sanctioned and ordered, would
leave the Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty that no other court or body
can perform, but which it cannot lawfully discharge if shorn of the participation
of its entire membership of Senators.
The Senate Electoral
Tribunal 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment