Constitutional Law 1 The Legislative Department: Commission on Appointments

Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr.

Digest prepared by: Mabelle O. ebres! "roup # Date: $uly 1%! 1&&' Parties: (etitioners: Anna Domini)ue M. L. Coseteng and *ababaihan (ara sa +nang ,ayan -*A+,A. /espondents: /amon 0. Mitra! spea1er o2 the 3ouse o2 /epresentatives4 5ran6is6o 7umulong! Ma8ority 5loor Leader4 $ovito 7alonga! e9:o22i6io Chairman o2 the Commission on Appointments4 /o)ue Ablan! Lorna 0erano:;ap! Miguel /omero! Antonio Cuen6o! /oga6iano Mer6ado! Alawadin ,andon! $ose Cabo6han! Carlos +mperial! Ma. Clara Lobregat! atalio ,eltran! Carmelo Lo6sin! Luis 7ingson! as members o2 the Commission on Appointments 2or the 3ouse o2 /eps. (onente: "rino:A)uino! $. Background: 1. Nature: (etition to review the de6ision o2 the Commission on Appointments Facts of the Case: Congressional <le6tions were held on May 11! 1&=>. Candidates 2rom (D(:Laban! La1as ng ,ansa -L,.! Liberal (arty -L(.! (:?nido! *ilusan ng ,agong Lipunan -*,L.! (anaghiusa! and *A+,A! plus a 2ew independents were ele6ted. Coseteng was the only 6andidate 2rom *A+,A. On August %@! 1&=>! the 3O/ ele6ted 11 representatives: Lorna 0erano:;ap! Miguel /omero! Antonio Cuen6o! /oga6iano Mer6ado! /aul DaAa! Alawadin ,andon! $ose Cabo6han! Carlos +mperial! Ma. Clara Lobregat! atalio ,eltran and Carmelo Lo6sin! all 2rom di22erent parties! to represent the 3O/ in the Commission on Appointments -COA.. On 7ept. %%! 1&=>! /o)ue Ablan was ele6ted 1% th member. On 7ept 1@! 1&==! the Laban ng Demo1rati1ong (ilipino -LD(. was organiAed as a politi6al party. 1B= out o2 %'% members o2 the house were a22iliated with the LD( so the reps to the COA had to be reorganiAed. On O6t. =! 1&==! Coseteng wrote a letter to Mitra that as representative o2 *A+,A! she be appointed as a member o2 the COA. 3er re)uest was endorsed by nine 6ongressmen. On De6. B! 1&==! the list o2 the reps to the COA was revised! repla6ing DaAa with 7ingson. On 5eb 1! 1&=&! Coseteng and *A+,A 2iled this petition 2or <9traordinary Legal Crits praying 2or the 6ourt to de6lare null and void the ele6tion o2 the abovementioned reps to the COA be6ause their ele6tion violated the 6onstitutional mandate o2 proportional representation -Art. 0+! 7e6. 1=.. A66ording to Coseteng! -1. the ew Ma8ority is only entitled to nine seats! -in the list! there are 1'. -%. members o2 parties must be nominated by their parties! -D. ele6tion o2 0erano:;ap -L(. as minority member is 6learly invalid! -#. AblanEs -*,L. retention as minority member is invalid be6ause he was not nominated nor ele6ted by the minority party or parties in the house. 5urthermore! Coseteng alleges that she is )uali2ied to sit in the COA be6ause she has the support o2 nine other 6ongressmen and women o2 the minority. A66ording to the respondents! the legality o2 the reorganiAation is outside the 8urisdi6tion o2 the 6ourt be6ause it is a politi6al )uestion! and that in any 6ase! the reorganiAation was based on the proportional representation o2 the parties. A66ording to them there are 1@' LD( members in the house! and that *A+,A was part o2 this 6oales6ed ma8ority! and not the minority. Issues: 1. CO the members o2 the house in the COA were 6hosen on the basis o2 proportional representation 2rom politi6al parties. %. CO Coseteng is entitled to a seat in the COA

He d! "atio Decidendi: 1. ;es. The 1@' members o2 LD ma1e up >&F! rounded to ='F o2 the house. ='F o2 1% G &.@! rounded to 1'! there2ore the LD( is given 1' seats. The two other seats are le2t to 0erano:;ap as rep o2 the se6ond largest party in the 6oales6ed ma8ority and Ablan as the prin6ipal opposition party. %. o. be6ause *A+,A is presumably a member o2 the 6oales6ed ma8ority! and even i2 *A+,A were to be 6onsidered as an opposition party! Coseteng only represents .#F o2 the house membership. To be able to 6laim proportional membership in the COA! a party should represent at least =.#F o2 the house membership. The endorsements are in6onse)uential. Decision: (etition dismissed 2or la61 o2 merit. #$$endi%: Art. 0+: 7e6tion 1=. HThere shall be a Commission on Appointments 6onsisting o2 the (resident o2 the 7enate! as e9 o22i6io Chairman! twelve 7enators! and twelve Members o2 the 3ouse o2 /epresentatives! ele6ted by ea6h 3ouse on the basis o2 proportional representation 2rom the politi6al parties and parties or organiAations registered under the party:list system represented therein. The 6hairman o2 the Commission shall not vote! e96ept in 6ase o2 a tie. The Commission shall a6t on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days o2 the Congress 2rom their submission. The Commission shall rule by a ma8ority vote o2 all the Members.I

Constitutional Appointments

Law

Legislative:

Commission

on

&uingona, Jr. vs. &on'a es

digest prepared by: /oLanD ng "roup +0 Date: O6tober %'! 1&&% Parties: (etitioners: Teo2isto T. "uingona! $r.! La1as: ational ?nion o2 Christian Demo6rats -LA*A7: ?CD. /espondents: eptali A. "onAales! Alberto /omulo! Cigberto <. Tanada (etitioner:in:intervention: ationalist (eopleEs Coalition (onente: Campos! $r.! $. Background: 1. Nature: (etition 2or prohibition to prohibit the respondent senators 2rom sitting and assuming the position o2 members o2 the Commission on Appointments. Case Histor) A2ter the ele6tions o2 May 1&&%! ele6tion to the Commission on Appointments were held. 3owever! petitioner 2iled a petition 2or prohibition against the appointments o2 respondents to the Commission as said appointments were violative o2 the rule or proportional representation as stated in 7e6tion 1= o2 Arti6le 0+ o2 the 1&=> Constitution.

(etitioner 6ontends that the mathemati6al 6omputation o2 proportional representation in6reased the membership o2 LD( and L( be6ause they 6laimed the e9tra hal2 seat! and thus redu6ed membership o2 LA*A7 and (C. Issues: 1. CO the ele6tion o2 7en. /omulo and 7en. Tanada as members o2 the Commission on Appointments is in a66ordan6e with the provision o2 7e6tion 1= o2 Arti6le 0+ o2 the 1&=> Constitution. %. CO the respondents 7enate a6t in grave abuse o2 dis6retion in ele6ting respondent senators -i2 said membership o2 senators are violative o2 the Constitution.. D. CO a writ o2 prohibition be issued i2 there was indeed grave abuse o2 dis6retion by the 7enate. "atio Decidendi 1. ;es. Adding L or .B to the proportional membership seats in6reased membership to a politi6al party while de6reasing membership to another politi6al party that had e)ual 6laim to the L or .B seat. This is 6learly a violation o2 7e6tion 1= as the ele6tion o2 respondent 7en. /omulo -LD(. in6reased its membership while de6reasing the membership o2 another politi6al party! either LA*A7: ?CD or (C. +n 7en. TanadaEs 6ase! he 6annot invo1e the ruling in the 6ase o2 his 2ather -LorenAo Tanada. as there were no problem with 2ra6tions then. 3is ele6tion based on the 2a6t that he was a sole representative o2 his party would result in a 1Dth senator in the Commission o2 Appointmets! and would also be a violation to the Constitution. "uidelines 2rom Coseteng vs. Mitra! $r.: +n the 7enate! a politi6al party or 6oalition must have at least two duly ele6ted senators 2or every seat in the Commission on Appointments. Chere there are more than two politi6al parties represented in the 7enate! a politi6al partyK6oalition with a single senator in the 7enate 6annot 6onstitutionally 6laim a seat in the Commission. %. ;es. The 7enate organiAation meeting on August %>! 1&&% was done with grave abuse o2 dis6retion due to the LD(Es sheer 2or6e o2 superiority in numbers. D. ;es. A writ o2 prohibition is hereby issued. The ele6tion o2 7enator /omulo and 7enator Tanada are de6lared null and void in violation o2 the proportional representation rule in 7e6. 1=! Arti6le 0+ o2 the 1&=> Constitution. Decision: <le6tion o2 the respondent 7enators as members o2 the Commission on Appointments! null and void. #PP*NDI+: 7e6. 1=! Art. 0+: There shall be a Commission o2 Appointments 6onsisting o2 the (resident o2 the 7enate as e9:o22i6io Chairman! twelve senators and twelve members o2 the 3ouse o2 /epresentatives! ele6ted by ea6h house on the basis o2 proportional representation 2rom the politi6al parties or organiAations registered under the party list system represented therein. The Chairman o2 the Commission shall not vote e96ept in 6ase o2 a tie. The Commission shall a6t on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days o2 the Congress 2rom their submission. The Commission shall rule by a ma8ority o2 all the members.

(.

Facts of the Case: May 11! 1&&% The national ele6tions yielded a 7enate 6omposition o2: LD( -1B senators.! (C -B senators.! LA*A7: ?CD -D senators.! L(:(D(:LA,A -1 senator. The applied mathemati6al 2ormula 2or proportional representation o2 ea6h politi6al party on relation to ele6tion o2 representatives in the 7enate is: -J o2 senators o2 a politi6al party K total J o2 senators ele6ted. 9 1% seats. This resulted in the LD( -1B members. having >.B proportional representatives! (C -B members. having %.B proportional representatives! LA*A7: ?CD -D members. having 1.B proportional representatives.! and L(:(D(:LA,A -1 member. having .B proportional representatives. August %>! 1&&% 7enate meeting saw LD( nominate = senators in the Commission o2 Appointments. The nomination o2 the eight senator was ob8e6ted to by petitioner. 7en. Tolentino 6ompromised that they ele6t = 2rom LD(! % 2rom (C! 1 2rom L( and 1 2rom LA*A7: ?CD with the understanding that it is only a temporary arrangement and will be reorganiAed i2 a party is proved to have an e96ess in representation. (etitioner ob8e6ted but ele6tion 6ontinued resulting in = LD(! 1 L(:(D(:LA,A ! % (C! and 1 LA*A7: ?CD. 7eptember %D! 1&&% (etitioner 2iled a petition 2or the issuan6e o2 a writ o2 prohibition to prohibit the respondent -7enate (res. "onAales. 2rom re6ogniAing the eight senator o2 LD( -/omulo. and lone senator o2 L( -Tanada. as the proposed 6ompromise o2 7en. Tolentino was violative o2 the rule o2 proportional representation -7e6 1=! Art 0+! 1&=> Constitution..

 Constitutional Law 1 Legislative: Legislative +nvestigations

Peo$ e vs. ,antiago

Digest: /aoulle 5errer! "roup # Date: 1=:$uly:1&B' Parties: $ean L. Arnault! petitioner Leon aAareno! 7gt.:at:Arms! (hil. 7enate M <usta)uio ,alagtas! Dire6tor o2 (risons! respondents OAaeta! ponente Nature: (etition 2or writ o2 habeas 6orpus Facts of the Case: (hilippine "overnment! through /ural (rogress Administration -/(A.! bought ,uenavista -,. and Tambobong -T. estates 2or #.B M and .B M respe6tively in late O6t 1&#& 1.B M was paid to <rnest 3. ,urt! represented by $ean Arnault! 2or his interests in both estates. Original owner o2 , was 7an $uan de Dios 3ospital with the govEt holding a %B:year lease and an option to buy starting 1 $an 1&D&. The o66upied /epubli6 tried to buy it but was re8e6ted and put the 2unds into an a66ount. "overnment has sin6e held possession o2 the estate. On %& $une 1&#@! 7an $uan de Dios 3ospital sold it to <rnest ,urt 2or BM with the terms o2 1'1 dp and B''1 per annum! with the 6ondition that any 2ailure to pay will 2or2eit his dp and result in the res6inding o2 the sale. 7o 2ar! ,urt has only paid the dp. Original owner o2 T was the (hilippine Trust Co and sold it to ,urt. Again! ,urt only paid the dp and 2ailed to pay the rest. A66ordingly! T was sold to the /(A with the 6an6ellation o2 ,urtEs 6erti2i6ate o2 title. 7enate adopts /esolution = to investigate the deals parti6ularly why they had to pay ,urt in the 2irst pla6e. Arnault testi2ies that he deposited the two 6he61s totaling 1.B M in an a66ount 2or ,urt ! subtra6ting B''1 2or his 2irm Asso6iated Agen6ies and ##'1 in a 6he61 payable to 6ash -6ashed by himsel2.. 7enator de 0era )ueries Arnault whether 2unds were disposed legally: Arnault answers in the a22irmative but then re2uses to 2urthr e9pound on the steps he too1 to deliver it to ,urt on the grounds that it violates the priva6y regarding dealings with other people. 5urther pressed! he was as1ed about the ##'1: Arnault says he turned it over to someone upon the instru6tions o2 ,urt but was apparently rather reti6ent and vague regarding the spe6i2i6 identity o2 who that someone was! supplying only details su6h as the initial $! his height o2 between BE%:BE@ and that he was male. On May 1B 1&B'! Arnault was haled 2or 6ontempt 6onsisting o2 6ontuma6ious a6ts during the investigation by the 7enate.

Orendain! a lawyer representing Arnault! argues that the )uestions were in6riminatory and 6ites the privilege o2 sel2:in6rimination. A2ter deliberation! 7enate 6ommitted petitionerEs 6ustody to aAareno until he reveals mystery ##'1 re6ipient. AL7O! 7< AT< C/<AT<7 /<7OL?T+O 1@: 6ontinuing investigation.

Issues: 1. CO 7enate has the power to punish him 2or 6ontempt in an in)uiry within the 8urisdi6tion o2 the legislative %. CO 7enate has the authority to 6ommit him 2or 6ontempt beyond its legislative session D. CO privilege o2 sel2:in6rimination is appli6able "atio Decidendi: 1. ;es. 7C 6ontends that the 8urisdi6tion o2 the 7enate was established and a66ordingly! in the pro6ess o2 its investigation as1ed pertinent )uestions to Arnault with regards to those who are responsible 2or the deal. The 6ontempt lies in the 2a6t that Arnault re2used to answer )uestions o2 a pertinent matter and the 7enate has the implied power to hold a person! even i2 not a member! in 6ontempt as long as it is in the pro6ess o2 an in)uiry within its 8urisdi6tion. %. ;es. 7C says that 7enate is a 6ontinuing body and does not 6ease to e9ist upon the periodi6al dissolution o2 the Congress or 3/: be6ause its members are ele6ted 2or si9 years! a third o2 whi6h be6ome va6ant every two years and the remaining two thirds 6ontinuing until the ne9t Congress4 as su6h! there is no limit to the power o2 the 7enate to punish 2or 6ontempt as long as it is 6onstitutional -in theory they 6ould hold Arnault 2orever but that would be so wrong.. D. o. 7C argues that Arnault said that all dealings were legal4 as su6h! his re2usal to reveal the name on the grounds o2 sel2:in6rimination -and he might de2ame someone. 6annot be sustained. 7C says that one 6annot 6laim 6onstitutional rights only when it suits him but at the same time be re6reant to his duties and obligations to the "overnment whi6h prote6ts those rights. Judg-ent: (<T+T+O D+7M+77<D. #$$endi%: (aras!(ablo! ,engAon!Montemayor and /eyes 6on6urring. Tuason: dissenting opinion: The investigation was met with popular approval as it dealt with gra2t and 6orruption: publi6 sentiment must be irrevo6ably pale in 6omparison though in the observan6e o2 6onsti pro6edure! maintenan6e o2 6onsti stru6ture and the prote6tion o2 individual rights. ;es! the power e9ists 2or the ne6essity o2 a6hieving the aims o2 the legislative: ie subpoena was 6orre6t and 2or6e was ne6essary when Arnault stalled 2or time that a2ter the end o2 the session he would go 2ree. +t is not absolute and holds the view o2 $. Land that it should be the Nleast possible ade)uate to the end propsedE: the name o2 the person was unne6essary to the purpose

o2 the 7enate : why did they have to imprison him when theyEll 6ontinue anyway -/es. 1@.O