Bondoc Vs Pineda

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Bondoc vs.

Pineda

FACTS: In the elections held on May 11, 1987, Marciano Pineda of the LDP and Emigdio Bondoc of
the NP were candidates for the position of Representative for the Fourth District of Pampanga.
Pineda was proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET), which is composed of 9 members,3 of whom are Justices of the SC and the
remaining 6 are members of the House of Representatives (5 members belong to the LDP and 1
member is from the NP). Thereafter, a decision had been reached in which Bondoc won over Pineda.
Congressman Camasura of the LDP voted with the SC Justices and Congressman Cerilles of the NP to
proclaim Bondoc the winner of the contest. On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision,
Congressman Camasura received a letter informing him thathe was already expelled from the LDP
for allegedly helping to organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo Cojuangco and for allegedly inviting
LDP members in Davao Del Sur to join said political party. On the day of the promulgation of the
decision, the Chairman of HRET received a letter informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the
letter from the LDP, the House of Representatives decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind
the election of Congressman Camasura to the HRET.

ISSUE: Whether or not the House of Representatives, at the request of the dominant political party
therein, may change that partys representation in the HRET to thwart the promulgation of a
decision freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending therein.

RULING: The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral Commission was to
provide an independentand impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative office,
devoid of partisan consideration. In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast
a conscience vote in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and
appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of
Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion, an injustice and a violation of the
Constitution.

You might also like