DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC vs. REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. PINEDA,et al.

G.R. No. 97710           September 26, 1991

GRIO-AQUIÑO, J.: p
Facts: Emigdio Bondoc and Marciano Pineda were rivals for a Congressional seat in the 4th District
of Pampanga. Pineda was a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). While Bondoc
was a member of the Nacionalista Party (NP). Pineda won in that election. However, Bondoc
contested the result in the HRET (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal). Bondoc won in the
protest and he was subsequently declared as the winner by the HRET.

Meanwhile, one member of the HRET, Congressman Juanito Camasura, Jr. who was a member of
LDP confessed to Rep. Jose Cojuangco (LDP’s leader) that he voted for Bondoc even though
Bondoc was a member of the NP. He confessed that he believed in his conscience that Bondoc truly
won the election. This resulted to Camasura’s expulsion from the LDP. Pineda then moved that they
withdraw Camasura from the HRET. They further prayed that a new election be held and that the
new LDP representative be appointed in the HRET. This new representative will be voting for Pineda
in the reopening of the election contest. Camasura was then removed by HRET’s chairwoman
Justice Ameurfina Herrera. Naturally, Bondoc questioned such action before the Supreme Court
(SC).

Pineda contends that the issue is already outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because
Camasura’s removal is an official act of Congress and by virtue of the doctrine of separation of
powers, the judiciary may not interfere.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court may inquire upon the validity of the said act of the HRET
without violating the doctrine of separation of powers.

HELD: Yes. The SC can settle the controversy in the case at bar without encroaching upon the
function of the legislature particularly a part thereof, HRET. The issue here is a judicial question. It
must be noted that what is being complained of is the act of HRET not the act of Congress. In here,
when Camasura was rescinded by the tribunal, a decision has already been made, members of the
tribunal have already voted regarding the electoral contest involving Pineda and Bondoc wherein
Bondoc won. The LDP cannot withdraw their representative from the HRET after the tribunal has
already reached a decision. They cannot hold the same election since the issue has already become
moot and academic. LDP is merely changing their representative to change the outcome of the
election. Camasura should be reinstated because his removal was not due to a lawful or valid cause.
Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of membership in the HRET. Expulsion of
Camasura violates his right to security of tenure.

**HRET is composed of 9 members. 3 members coming from the SC. 5 coming from the majority
party (LDP). And 1 coming from the minority.

Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their
respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom
shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be members of the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.”
 LORENZO M. TAÑADA vs. MARIANO JESUS CUENCO
G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957
CONCEPCION, J.:

Facts:

After the 1955 national elections, the membership in the Senate was overwhelmingly occupied by
the Nacionalista Party. The lone opposition senator was Lorenzo Tañada who belonged to the
Citizen’s Party. Diosdado Macapagal on the other hand was a senatorial candidate who lost the bid
but was contesting it before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). But prior to a decision the SET
would have to choose its members. It is provided that the SET should be composed of 9 members
comprised of the following: 3 justices of the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority party and 3
senators from the minority party. But since there is only one minority senator the other two SET
members supposed to come from the minority were filled in by the NP. Tañada assailed this process
before the Supreme Court. So did Macapagal because he deemed that if the SET would be
dominated by NP senators then he, as a member of the Liberalista Party will not have any chance in
his election contest. Senator Mariano Cuenco et al (members of the NP) averred that the Supreme
Court cannot take cognizance of the issue because it is a political question. Cuenco argued that the
power to choose the members of the SET is vested in the Senate alone and the remedy for Tañada
and Macapagal was not to raise the issue before judicial courts but rather to leave it before the bar
of public opinion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.

HELD: No. The SC took cognizance of the case and ruled that the issue is a justiciable question.
The term Political Question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of
policy. It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The Supreme Court is not being asked by
Tañada to decide upon the official acts of Senate. The issue being raised by Tañada was whether or
not the elections of the 5 NP members to the SET are valid – which is a judicial question. Note that
the SET is a separate and independent body from the Senate which does not perform legislative
acts.

But how should the gridlock be resolved?

The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the supposed seat of the minority
members) must not come from the majority party. In this case, the Chairman of the SET, apparently
already appointed members that would fill in the minority seats (even though those will come from
the majority party). This is still valid provided the majority members of the SET (referring to those
legally sitting) concurred with the Chairman. Besides, the SET may set its own rules in situations like
this provided such rules comply with the Constitution.