Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to disqualify all members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) who were Senators from hearing an election contest involving 22 proclaimed senators, arguing it violated due process. The Court ruled this would go against the Constitution which intended the SET to have both judicial and legislative components in deciding elections. The SET's composition of 3 Justices and 6 Senators achieved this balance and removing the Senators would make the SET unable to fulfill its constitutional duty.
Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to disqualify all members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) who were Senators from hearing an election contest involving 22 proclaimed senators, arguing it violated due process. The Court ruled this would go against the Constitution which intended the SET to have both judicial and legislative components in deciding elections. The SET's composition of 3 Justices and 6 Senators achieved this balance and removing the Senators would make the SET unable to fulfill its constitutional duty.
Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to disqualify all members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) who were Senators from hearing an election contest involving 22 proclaimed senators, arguing it violated due process. The Court ruled this would go against the Constitution which intended the SET to have both judicial and legislative components in deciding elections. The SET's composition of 3 Justices and 6 Senators achieved this balance and removing the Senators would make the SET unable to fulfill its constitutional duty.
Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal; | G.R. No. L-83767 | October 27, 1988 | Ponente: Gancayco, J.
Nature of Case: Special Civil Action for Certiorari
Petitioners: Firdausi Smail Abbas, et. al. Respondents: Senate Electoral Tribunal SUMMARY: Petitioners ask to disqualify SET Senator-members from hearing an election contest of proclaimed senators elect. The Court ruled that this would be contrary to ART VI, Sec 17 of the Constitution, which aims to achieve a balance of both “judicial” and “legislative” components in deciding election contests. TOPIC: ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL FACTS: October 9, 1987: Petitioners filed election contest against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition, who were proclaimed senators-elect o The Electoral Tribunal at the time was composed of 3 Supreme Court Justices and 6 Senators1 November 17, 1987: Petitioners filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senators-Members from the hearing and resolution of the above-mentioned case. o Filed on grounds that all of them are interested parties After the oral arguments were heard, the SET issued Resolutions denying the petitioners Motion for Disqualification and their Motion for Reconsideration Thus, petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for certiori to the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify and set aside the Resolutions. They argue that: o Considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process require the mass disqualification of the Senators o Doctrine of necessity won’t be ruled out with their proposed amendment to the SET’s rules of procedure (To permit contest to be heard by only three members of the tribunal, specifically, the three Justices of the Court) ISSUE: WON the proposed amendment (ie., disqualifying all senate members) violates the constitution—YES 1. Art VI, Sec 17 of the Constitution: “…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 shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives…” a. Constitution clearly intended that both “judicial” and “legislative” components will have common duty and authority in deciding contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications b. Said intent is even more clearly signaled by the fact that the proportion of membership is 2:1 (2 Senators to 1 Justice) 2. Proposed disqualification and amendment would make the SET abandon duty given to it by the constitution 3. The Framers of the Constitution may have been aware of the possibility of Senators rendering judgment on contests involving all 24 Senators, but Constitution provides no scheme for settling such unusual situation. “Litigants must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness and sense of justice of the SET members.” Moreover, Senators may still voluntary inhibit themselves. FINAL RULING: The petition is dismissed for lack of merit 1 Senators are Joseph Estrada, Neptali Gonzales, Teofista Guingona, Jose Lina, Mamintal Tamano, and Victor Ziga. While Enrile voluntarily inhibited himself from participating in hearings and deliberations b/c of another contest against him SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF FELICIANO: If three Senators inhibit themselves and final Tribunal would be composed of 3 Justices and 3 Senators, considerations of public policy and fair play, and the “judicial” and “legislative” composition of SET, would still be achieved.
The Dick BILL and COMMENTS HR 11654 - A Bill To Promote The Efficiency of The Militia and For Other Purposes To Supersede The Archaic Militia Laws Enacted in 1792