Daza V.

Singson
Judicial Power
Justiciable Controversy
Facts:

Daza was chosen to be part of the Commission of Appointments and was listed as representative
of the Liberal Party. LDP was reorganized and 24 members from the Liberal Party transferred to
LDP. Because of this, the House of Representatives revised its representation by withdrawing the
seat given to Daza and giving it to the newly-formed LDP. Singson was chosen to replace Daza, in
accordance to proportional representation.

Issues

1. Whether the issue is a justiciable controversy

2. Whether it is necessary for the party to be registered and achieved stability to be entitled to
proportional representation in the CA

Rule:

1. The Court ruled that the issue is a justiciable controversy.

In Tanada vs Cuenco, the Court held that what was involved was not the wisdom of the
Senate in choosing the respondents but the legality of the choice in light of the requirement
of the Constitution. The petitioners were questioning the manner of filling the Tribunal, not
the discretion of the Senate in doing so. The Court held that this was a justiciable and not a
political question. “The exercise of is power there on is subject to constitutional limitations
which are claimed to be mandatory in nature. It is clearly within the legitimate province of
the judicial department to pass upon the validity of the proceeding in connection therewith.”
[Tanada vs. Cuenco]

Even if the issue presented before the Court was political in nature, it would still not be
precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon the Court that
now covers, in proper cases, even the political questions. [Article VII, Sec. 1, 1987
Constitution]

In Cunanan vs. Tan, 25 Members of the Nacionalista Party reorganized themselves and
formed the Allied Majority. 3 Nacionalista Congressmen, originally chosen, were deprived of
their seats by colleagues who joined the Allied Majority. Carlos Cunanan’s ad interim
appointment was rejected by the CA. Jorge Tan was designated in his place. Cunanan
contended the validity of the rejection. The Court agreed that Allied Majority was merely
a temporary combination; officially, they were still part of the Nacionalista Party. Thus,
the reorganization of the CA at that time was not based on proportional
representation as conferred by the Constitution. The Court held that mere shift of votes
should not affect the organization of the CA, or else, it would forever be at the mercy of the
House of Representatives. “The House is clothed with authority to declare vacant the
necessary number of seats in the Commission on Appointments held by members of the said
House belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change* and then fill said
vacancies in conformity with the Constitution.” [Cunanan vs. Tan]

*Permanent change

In the present case, the court resolved the matter in favor of the authority of the House of
Representatives to change its representation in the CA to reflect at any time the changes that
may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. Provided that such changes
must be permanent and do not included the temporary alliances or factional divisions
not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of
allegiance from one political part to another.

2. The petitioner argues that LDP is not a permanent party and has not yet achieved stability.
However, the LDP has already been in existence for a year. They command the biggest
following. They not only survived but prevailed.
Daza V. Singson
Judicial Power
Justiciable Controversy
Regarding being a duly registered party, the LDP was granted its registration as a political
party by the COMELEC. Thus, shattering the argument of the petitioner that registration is
required.