Daza v Singson (Constitution)

Daza v Singson
GR No. 86344 December 21, 1989

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.cralaw

FACTS:
(1) May 11, 1987 (After congressional elections) -- Petitioner Raul A. Daza was among those chosen and was listed as a representative of the Liberal Party.
(2) September 16, 1988 -- the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino was reorganized, resulting in a political realignment in the House of Representatives. Twenty four members of the Liberal Party formally resigned from that party and joined the LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 and correspondingly reducing their former party to only 17 members.
On the basis of this development, the House of Representatives revised its representation in the Commission on Appointments by withdrawing the seat occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the newly-formed LDP. On December 5, 1988, the chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the original members except the petitioner and including therein respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the LDP. The petitioner came to this Court on January 13, 1989, to challenge his removal from the Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the respondent. Acting initially on his petition for prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction, we issued a temporary restraining order that same day to prevent both the petitioner and the respondent from serving in the Commission on Appointments.
(3) Arguments for the petitioner:
(a) he cannot be removed from the Commission on Appointments because his election thereto is
permanent under the doctrine announced in Cunanan v. Tan.
(b) the reorganization of the House representation in the said body is not based on a permanent
political realignment because the LDP is not a duly registered political party and has not yet attained political stability.
(4) Arguments for the respondent:
(a) the question raised by the petitioner is political in nature and so beyond the jurisdiction of
this Court. (Main fact for judicial department)
(b) he has been improperly impleaded, the real party respondent being the House of Representatives which changed its representation in the Commission on Appointments and removed the petitioner.
(c) nowhere in the Constitution is it required that the political party be registered to be entitled to proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court can take cognizance of the case

HELD:
Ruling first on the jurisdictional issue, we hold that, contrary to the respondent' s assertion, the Court has the competence to act on the matter at bar.

RATIO:
(1) What is before us is not a discretionary act of the House of Representatives that may not be reviewed by us because it is political in nature. What is involved here is the legality, not the wisdom, of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments. That is not a political question because, as Chief Justice Concepcion explained in Tanada v. Cuenco.
... the term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, ... 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 Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
The exercise of its power thereon 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.
... whether an election of public officers has been in accordance with law is for the judiciary. Moreover, where the legislative department has by statute prescribed election procedure in a given situation, the judiciary may determine whether a particular election has been in conformity with such statute, and particularly, whether such statute has been applied in a way to deny or transgress on constitutional or statutory rights ...' (1 6C.J .S., 439; emphasis supplied)
I t is, therefore, our opinion that we have, not only jurisdiction but also the duty, to consider and determine the principal issue raised by the parties herein."
(2) The case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that,
even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

OTHER NOTES:
(1) Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.