ATTY. ROMULO B.

MACALINTAL, Petitioner,
vs.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010

FACTS:
The present petition was filed by Atty. Romulo V. Macalintal. The petition questions the
constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), which, for Atty. Macalintal, is
an illegal progeny os Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states
that:
“The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.”
While Atty. Macalintal recognizes that the Supreme Court is “authorized to promulgate its
rules for the purpose,” he scraped the creation of a separate tribunal complemented by a
budget allocation, a seal, a set of personnel and confidential employees, to effect the
mandate.
Since PET consists of members of the judiciary, Atty. Macalintal also avers that the PET
is in violation of Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution, which prohibits the designation
of Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

ISSUE:
Is PET unconstitutional for its alleged violation of Section 4, Article VII and Section
12, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution?

RULING:
No. PET was held as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Reading the assailed constitutional provision in its plain meaning, it does not
specify the establishment of PET. But neither does it preclude, much less prohibit, the
creation thereof. Looking into the intent of the Constitutional Commission when this
provision was created, it can be seen that the exercise of the Court’s power to judge
presidential and vice-presidential election contests, as well as the rule-making power
adjunct thereto, is plenary; it is not as restrictive as petitioner would interpret it. The
conferment of additional jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, with the duty characterized as
an "awesome" task, includes the means necessary to carry it into effect under the doctrine
of necessary implication i.e. including the creation of the PET.
PET is not a separate and distinct entity from the Supreme Court, although it has
functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the
change in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices into Chairman
and Members of the Tribunal, respectively, was intended merely to highlight the
singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunal’s functions as a special electoral court
In relation to petitioner’s assertion that PET is violative of Section 12, Article VIII of
the Constitution, the Court ruled otherwise. When the Supreme Court, as PET, resolves
a presidential or vice-presidential election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial
power. If the reasoning of petitioner is to be followed, all Members of the Court sitting in
the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals would violate the constitutional prohibition
found in Section 12, Article VIII. In the same manner, it is the Constitution itself which
exempts the Members of the Court, constituting the PET, from the same proscription.