F. Electoral Tribunals

H. Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments

• Nature
• Powers

1987 CONST., art. VI, sec. 17

> SECTION 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 the 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.

ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

NATURE

The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal (SET and HRET). (PHIL. CONST., art. VI, § 17.)

Composition – Nine (9) members

• Three (3) Supreme Court Justices to be designated by the Chief Justice.
• The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
• Six (6) Members of the Senate or House, as the case may be. They shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation

The presence of the three Justices, as against six members of [each House], was intended as an additional guarantee to ensure impartiality in the judgment of cases before it. As such, there should always be one member of the Tribunal who is a Justice. If all three Justice-members inhibit themselves in a case, the Supreme Court will designate another Justice to chair the Electoral Tribunal. (Reyes v. HRET, G.R. No. 221103, Oct. 16, 2018)

Nature of Tribunals

The tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court although two-thirds of its members are politicians. It is a non-political body in a sea of politicians. 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. (Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, Sept. 26, 1991)]

LEONEN: An Electoral Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body. Therefore, the degree of proof required is only substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (David v. SET, G.R. No. 221538, Sept. 20, 2016)

Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments

Jurisdiction

Each Electoral Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the (ERQ) Election, Returns and Qualifications of their respective members. This includes determining the validity or invalidity of a proclamation declaring a particular candidate as the winner.

“Qualifications” are not limited to the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution for a Member of Congress under Art. VI, Sec. 6. (Guerrero v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000)

The COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins once a winning candidate is:

• proclaimed
• taken his oath, and
• assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives. (Aggabao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163756, Jan. 26, 2005)

Thus, in an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate who has taken his oath of office and assumed his post as Congressman is raised, that issue is best addressed to the HRET. (Guerrero v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000)

Once jurisdiction over a House member’s election, returns, or qualifications belongs to the HRET, the appropriate election contest or quo warranto petition should be brought there. An HRET ruling may be reviewed by the Supreme Court under Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Señeres v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178678, Apr. 16, 2009)

Note: The Constitution provides that a person assumes office “at noon on the 30th day of June”.

The Oath of Office the petitioner presented is not valid. Her June 5 oath did not satisfy the requirements for a proper oath as a House member. Therefore, the COMELEC still has jurisdiction. Before there is a valid taking of the oath, it must be made:

• before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
• in open session. (Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013)

Electoral Tribunals

SECTION 17, ARTICLE VI. 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 the 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.

---

Two Types

• Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)
• House Electoral Tribunal (HRET)

Note: There is a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), but it is governed by different provisions.

The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of the President, the Vice-President, Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives was made clear by the Constitution [Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697 (2016)].

SC as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)

The SC, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President or Vice President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. (Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618, Nov. 23, 2010)

Composition

• The ET shall be constituted within 30 days after the Senate and the House shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker [Section 19, Article VI, 1987 Constitution].
• Members chosen enjoy security of tenure and cannot be removed by mere temporary change of party affiliation [Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710 (1991)].

The Supreme Court as Presidential Electoral Tribunal

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

When ET acquires jurisdiction:

• When there is an election contest, and
• Only after the proclamation of a candidate [Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. 84297(1988)].

In the absence of an election contest, and before proclamation, jurisdiction remains with COMELEC [Lazatin v. HRET, supra]. But the valid proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election, together with a proper oath and assumption of office, divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over the proclaimed representative in favor of the HRET [Tañada v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207199 (2013)].

But see Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC [G.R. No. 207264 (2013)] where the Court held that an Electoral Tribunal acquires jurisdiction only after (1) a petition is filed before it, and (2) a candidate is already considered a member of the House.

To be considered a member, in turn, there must be a concurrence of the following: (1) a valid proclamation; (2) a proper oath (a) before the Speaker and (b) in open session; and (3) assumption of office.

The Court in Ongsiako-Reyes clarified the doctrine that once a proclamation has been made, COMELEC’s jurisdiction is already lost and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins only applies in the context of a candidate who has not only been proclaimed and sworn in, but has also assumed office.

Independence of the Electoral Tribunals

Since the ET’s are independent constitutional bodies, independent even of the respective House, Congress may not interfere with procedural matters relating to the functions of the ET’s, but the Courts may review ET rulings for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction under Art. VIII, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution [Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618 (2010)].

Electoral Tribunals

Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution. The Senate and the House of Representatives each have an Electoral Tribunal. Each tribunal is the sole judge of contests involving the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of its respective chamber.

Each tribunal has nine members: three Supreme Court Justices designated by the Chief Justice and six members of the chamber concerned, chosen through proportional representation from its political parties and its parties or organizations registered under the party-list system. The most senior Justice on the tribunal serves as chairperson.

• The electoral tribunal of the Senate
• The electoral tribunal of the House of Representatives

A separate tribunal for presidential elections is governed by different constitutional provisions. The Constitution identifies the tribunals with jurisdiction over questions concerning the qualifications of the President, Vice-President, Senators, and members of the House of Representatives. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697 (2016).

Composition

• 3 Supreme Court justices, designated by Chief Justice; Senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman
• 6 members of the Senate or House, as the case may be, chosen on the basis of proportional representation from parties

When ET acquires jurisdiction:

• When there is an election contest, and
• Only after the proclamation of a candidate [Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. 84297(1988)], a proper oath, assumption of office, and the filing of a petition before the Electoral Tribunal [Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264 (2013)].

In the absence of an election contest, and before proclamation, jurisdiction remains with COMELEC [Lazatin v. HRET, supra]. But the proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election does not, by itself, divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction in favor of the HRET; the candidate must also become a member through a proper oath and assumption of office, and a petition must be filed before the HRET [Tañada v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207199 (2013)]

But see Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC [G.R. No. 207264 (2013)] where the Court held that an Electoral Tribunal acquires jurisdiction only after (1) a petition is filed before it, and (2) a candidate is already considered a member of the House.

To be considered a member, in turn, there must be a concurrence of the following: (1) a valid proclamation; (2) a proper oath (a) before the Speaker and (b) in open session; and (3) assumption of office.

The Court in Ongsiako-Reyes clarified that proclamation alone does not divest COMELEC of jurisdiction in favor of the HRET; HRET jurisdiction over an election contest requires a petition before it and a candidate who has become a House member through valid proclamation, a proper oath, and assumption of office.

Independence of the Electoral Tribunals

Since the ET’s are independent constitutional bodies, independent even of the respective House, neither Congress nor the Courts may interfere with procedural matters relating to the functions of the ET’s, except that the Supreme Court may review ET rulings for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not for mere errors of judgment [Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618 (2010)].

Powers

The power granted to HRET by the Constitution is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature [Co v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 (1991), citing Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra].

The Constitution mandates that the HRET “shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications” of its members. By employing the word “sole,” the Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the HRET in the adjudication of election contests involving its members is exclusive and exhaustive. Its exercise of power is intended to be its own — full, complete and unimpaired [Duenas, Jr. v. HRET, G.R. No. 185401 (2009)].