EN BANC
|
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,
-versus- HON. JOSE DE VENECIA JR. in his
official capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives; HON. ARTHUR D.
DEFENSOR, SR., in his official capacity as Majority Floor Leader of the House
of Representatives, HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR, in his official capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the Commission
on Appointments, ATTY. MA. GEMMA D. ASPIRAS, in her official 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 official capacities as “elected” members of the
Commission on Appointments, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x SENATOR MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL, Petitioner, - versus - SENATOR MANUEL VILLAR in his
capacity as Senate President and Ex-Officio 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. |
G.R. No. 180055 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION,*
PERALTA, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: July
31, 2009 G.R. No. 183055 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
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
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 first 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 first 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]
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 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 filing on October 31, 2007 of the first 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 officio 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.[10] 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.[11] (Italics
in the original)
And it prays that this Court:
a.
Immediately upon the filing 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 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;
x x x x
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 reconfigure
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 office
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.[12]
Respondents
Senator Villar and CA Secretary Aspiras filed their Comment[13]
on
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.[14] (Emphasis in the original)
Then
Speaker De Venecia and Representative Defensor filed their Comment and
Opposition[15]
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.[16]
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, THEREFORE, NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO
INSTITUTE THE INSTANT PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO.[17]
III.
THE
PETITIONERS FAILED TO EXHAUST THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THEM.[18]
IV.
THE
CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE AFFILIATION OF THE MEMBERS NEED TO
BE SETTLED IN A TRIAL.[19] (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.[20]
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 five (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.[21]
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.”[22]
By letter of
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.[23]
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,”[24] and
that without any such resolution, she would be forced to invoke Section 20 of
the CA rules against every official whose confirmation would be submitted to
the body for deliberation.[25]
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.[26]
By letter of
x x x x
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” x x x, 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” x x x.
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. Arroyo 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.[27] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Undaunted,
Senator Madrigal, by letter of
Senator
Madrigal thereafter filed 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-Officio Chairman of
the CA, Speaker Nograles, and the CA,[29]
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 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.[30] (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 officials 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 officers 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.[31]
The
Court consolidated G.R. No. 180055[32]
and G.R. No. 183055 on
Petitioners
in the first petition, G.R. No.
180055, later filed on August 15, 2008 a Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw
the Petition,[33]
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.
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.[34] (Emphasis in the original;
underscoring supplied)
In
his Comment and Opposition[35]
filed on
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.[36]
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.[38]
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 first 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.[39] 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 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.[40] 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:[41]
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 first wrote to the Senate
President, requesting that the Commission on Appointments be restructured to
conform to the constitutional provision on proportional representation. xxx Without awaiting final determination of
the question xxx, Pimentel filed 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 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 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.
x x xx
Thus, even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a
sufficient 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 first 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 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 first 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.[42] (Italics, underscoring, and emphasis supplied
by Representative Nograles)
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 filing 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,[43]
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 affiliations, 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 GRANTED.
The Petition is WITHDRAWN. The Petition in G.R. No. 183055 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- SANTIAGO Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* On official leave.
[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]
[9]
[10]
[11] Id. at 26.
[12] Id. at 35-36.
[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]
[42] Rollo (G.R. No. 183055), pp. 175-176.
[43] Id. at 18-19.