Bondoc v.

Pineda

Summary Cases:

● Bondoc vs. Pineda 201 SCRA 792

Subject: Electoral Tribunal as an independent organ, Electoral Tribunal members enjoy security of
tenure, Political question

Facts:

In the May 1987 congressional elections, Marciano Pineda of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP)
and Dr. Emigdio Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival candidates for the position of
Representative for the 4th District of Pampanga.

Pineda was proclaimed by Comelec as the winner by a difference of 3,300 votes. Bondoc filed a protest
before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

A re-examination of the ballots revealed that Bondoc won by a margin of 107 votes and the Tribunal
voted (5-4) that Bondoc be proclaimed the winner of the contest.

Congressman Camasura, an HRET member from the LDP party, told Congressman Cojuangco, Jr., the
LDP Secretary General, that he voted for Bondoc.

On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, Conjuangco informed Camasura by letter that he
was being expelled from the LDP for acts of disloyalty to the party (ostensibly for inviting LDP members
to join the Partido Pilipino party of Danding Conjuangco).

On the basis of the letter, the House of Representatives issued a Resolution to withdraw the
membership of Camasura in the HRET. Consequently, HRET also cancelled the promulgation of Bondoc
because “without Congressman Camasura's vote, the decision lacks the concurrence of five members
as required by the Rules of the Tribunal and, therefore, cannot be validly promulgated.”

Held:

Electoral Tribunal as an independent organ

| Page 1 of 3
1. The use of the word "sole" in both Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of the 1935
Constitution underscores the exclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal as judge of contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives.

2. It is an independent organ, separate and independent from the legislature.

3. The resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from the House
Electoral Tribunal for disloyalty to the LDP, because he cast his vote in favor of the Nacionalista Party's
candidate, Bondoc, is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the House Electoral Tribunal
to be the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc.

4. As judges, the members of the Tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their functions
with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even independence from the political party to
which they belong. Hence, "disloyalty to party" and "breach of party discipline," are not valid grounds for
the expulsion of a member of the tribunal.

HRET members enjoy security of tenure

5. The expulsion violates Congressman Camasura's right to security of tenure. Members of the HRET,
as sole judge" of congressional election contests, are entitled to security of tenure just as members of
the judiciary enjoy security of tenure under our Constitution. Therefore, membership in the House
Electoral Tribunal may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the expiration of the member's
congressional term of office, his death, permanent disability, resignation from the political party he
represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with another political party, or removal for other valid cause. A
member may not be expelled by the House of Representatives for "party disloyalty" short of proof that he
has formally affiliated with another political group.

Political Question

6. The "political question" doctrine means that "where the matter involved is left to a decision by the
people acting in their sovereign capacity or to the sole determination by either or both the legislative or
executive branch of the government, it is beyond judicial cognizance.”

7. However, the other two branches are not totally immune to judicial investigation as the improvident
exercise or abuse of their power gives rise to a judicial controversy. It is the duty of the courts to look into
the constitutionality and validity of legislative or executive action, especially when private rights are
affected.

8. The power and duty of the courts to nullify the actions of the executive and legislative branches of the
Government, does not mean that the courts are superior to the President and the Legislature. It is simply
an exercise of the duty of the judicial branch to ensure that the two branches remain within their
| Page 2 of 3
constitutional limits and to assure the supremacy of the Constitution.

| Page 3 of 3