Title : BONDOC v.

PINEDA
Citation : G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991

Facts:

Pineda from the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party
(NP) were rival candidates for Rep of the 4th district of Pampanga. Pineda was proclaimed
winner of the election. Bondoc filed protest to house of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET). The decision held that Bondoc won over Pineda by a margin of 23 votes. The LDP
insisted a recount and the recount has increased Bondocs win by 107 votes. So Congressman
Camasura voted with the SC justices and Congressman Cerilles proclaimed Bondoc the winner
of the election.so Camasura being a member of the LDP revealed to the
chief congressman Conjuanco that he voted for Bondoc and he did so in view of what was in
line with truth justice and self respect. The revelation prompted efforts by the LDP to neutralize
pro-Bondoc majority in the Tribunal. So on the eve of promulgation of Bondocs win, Congress
man Jose Conjuangco thru a letter stated that Camasura and Bautista were being expelled for
the LDP for allegedly helping in the organization of Partido Pilipino of Danding cojuanco and for
having members of LDP join said pol party. The LDP informed Herrera that they were no longer
part of LDP hence; his (Camasuras) vote in favor of Bondoc should be withdrawn. The judges in
HRET all wanted out cause of this distressing development. They were saying that unseating
should be prevented in all cost. They also said that the tribunal should not be hampered in
doing its constitutional function by factors, which have nothing to do with the merits of
the cases before it. The Bondoc promulgation was cancelled because the decision lack
the concurrence of 5 members as required by Section 24 of the rules of the tribunal. Bondoc
asked the court to annul the decision of the House in rescinding Camasuras nomination and
restrain the replacement of Camasura through a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus.

Issue:

Whether or not the House of Representatives is empowered to interfere with the disposition of
an election contest in the HReT by reorganizing the representation of the majority party in the
tribunal?

Held:
No. Section 17 Articles VI supplies the answer to this question.. So the HRET is the sole judge of
all contests relation to the election, returns and qualification of their respective members. The
operative term found in the section was sole Judge. It (HRET) was made to function as a non-
partisan court although 2/3 of its members are politicians. Its suppose to provide an
independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative office devoid
of partisan consideration.

So they cant just shuffle and manipulate the political component for the electoral tribunal to
serve the interests of party in power.

Its independence would be undermined if the removal of Camasura for as a punishment for
party disloyalty for voting for Bondoc wouldallow them to change the judgment of the HRET
in the Bondoc case.If allowed so, then the HRET isnt really a sole judge of senatorial elections.
The members of the HRET are entitled to security of tenure just as the members of the judiciary
are. They can only be replaced in cases such as expiration, death, permanent disability,
resignation forms the political party, and formal affiliation with another party of any valid cause
hence mere disloyalty is not a valid cause for termination.