Case Digest

Details
Fernando Lopez (Petitioner) v. Gerardo Roxas and
Docket Number G.R. No. L-25716 Case Title
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Respondents)

Facts
Fernando Lopez (Petitioner) and Gerardo Roxas (Respondent) were the main contenders for the
Office of the Vice-President of the Philippines in the general elections held on November 9,
1965. By Resolution No. 2, approved on December 17, 1965, the two Houses of Congress
assembled proclaimed Lopez as the Vice-President with 3,531,550 votes (26,724 votes more
than his opponent, Roxas).

On January 5, 1966, Roxas filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), Election Protest
No. 2, stating that it was not Lopez who garnered the largest number of votes for the said office,
but him.

On February 2, 1966, Lopez instituted in the Supreme Court the present original action, for
prohibition with preliminary injunction, against Roxas, to prevent the PET from exercising
jurisdiction over the case, on the ground that Republic Act No. 1793, creating said tribunal is
“unconstitutional”.

Issue
Whether or not (W/N) the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is unconstitutional.

Held/Rationale
Petition Denied

No, the PET is not unconstitutional because it merely endows additional jurisdiction in the
Supreme Court.

Article VIII, Section 1 of the Consitution states

“The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be
established by law.”

Section 1 of RA No. 1793 states that

“There shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal ... which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president-elect and the
vice-president-elect of the Philippines”,
This gives Roxas the right to judicially contest for a recount of the votes and secure judgment
based on the recount for the Vice-Presidency declaring that he is the winner and as such,
assumes the duties of the said position. It is also provided that the PET
"shall be composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court,"

Which states that the Supreme Court was given by the legislation an additional original
jurisdiction of an exclusive character. RA No. 17933 did not formulate a new or separate Court
but rather bestowed upon the Supreme Court the functions of the PET.

The Court is only one but performs different functions pertaining to several types of courts. The
PET is not inferior to the Supreme Court because it is the same Court but just has a different
function – a more limited scope compared to the Supreme Court. The enactment of RA No. 1793
does not require an assumption by Congress of the power of appointment vested by the
Constitution in the President. It merely signifies the imposition of additional duties upon the
Members of the Supreme Court.

The power to be the “judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications”
stated in RA No. 1793 is considered judicial. Thus, applying the principle of separation of
powers, this belongs solely to the judicial department, except only if the Constitution provides
otherwise; hence, the reason why the Constitution sets down that

"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"
(Article VI, Section 11, of the Constitution);

This provision excludes the power to decide such contests from the operation of the general
grant of “judicial power” to the Supreme Court and such inferior courts.

The Constitutional provision above that states the necessity of Electoral Tribunals for Members
of Congress proves that the Constitution intended to vest Congress with discretion to determine
by law whether or not the election of a president-elect or vice-president-elect may be contested,
and if Congress decides on the affirmative, which court of justice should have the jurisdiction to
hear the contest. Thus, not only that RA No. 1793 is not inconsistent with the Constitution or
with the principle of separation of powers, but also it is in harmony with the grant of the
“judicial power” said to courts.

Congress, acting as a national board of canvassers has a ministerial and executive duty to make
such declarations – who won the positions. The PET has the judicial power to determine whether
or not said election returns have been tampered with, reflect the true results of the elections,
recount the ballots cast, and identify in whose favor.
In imposing the Supreme Court the additional duty of performing the functions of the PET,
Congress has not, through RA No. 1793, encroached upon the appointing power of the
Executive. The imposition of new duties constitutes, neither the creation of an office nor the
appointment of an officer.

Wherefore, the petition herein is hereby dismissed and the writs therein prayed for denied
accordingly. The aforesaid motion is, moreover, denied. With costs against the petitioner. It is so
ordered.

Other Information (if applicable)

The power of the Congress to declare, which among the candidates for President and
Vice-President has obtained the largest number of votes, is different in nature and not
inconsistent with the jurisdiction vested in the PET by RA No. 1793.

● Congress: merely acts as a national board of canvassers charged with ministerial and
executive duty to make said declarations on the basis of the election returns duly certified
by provincial and city boards of canvassers.

● PET: has the judicial power to identify whether or not said duly certified election returns
have been tampered with, or reflect the true results on the areas covered by each, and if
not, to recount the ballots cast and pass validity of each ballot to determine whether the
same shall be counted, and in the affirmative, which Congress has power to do.
○ Is not inferior to the SC because it is the same court but just has a different
function.