The presence of three justices in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is intended “to tone down the political nature of the cases” and to assure impartiality in the judgment of the tribunal.
The Supreme Court made the declaration as it dismissed the petition filed by former Marinduque Rep. Regina Ongsiako Reyes who challenged the alleged constitutionality of some provisions in the 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET.
Under the Constitution, the HRET is mandated to resolve all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualification of the members of the House of Representatives.
It is a collegial body composed of three SC justices and six members of the House.
In her petition, Reyes assailed the constitutionality of Rule 6(a) of HRET’s Revised Rules, which provides that “the presence of at least one justice and four members of the Tribunal shall be necessary to constitute a quorum.”
Reyes argued that the rule on the presence of one SC justice to constitute a quorum violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution and gives undue power to the justices over the legislators.
“This means that even when all the Justices are present, at least two members of the House of Representatives need to be present to constitute a quorum. Without this rule, it would be possible for five members of the House of Representatives to convene and have a quorum even when no Justice is present. This would render ineffective the rationale contemplated by the framers of the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions for placing the Justices as members of the HRET,” the SC decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio,
According to the tribunal, Reyes “is nitpicking in claiming that Rule 6(a) unduly favors the Justices because under the same rule, it is possible for four members of the House of Representatives and only one Justice to constitute a quorum.”
“Rule 6(a) of the 2015 HRET Rules does not make the Justices indispensable members to constitute a quorum but ensures that representatives from both the Judicial and Legislative departments are present to constitute a quorum,” the high court ruled.
The SC also said the rule does not violate equal protection clause in the Constitution.
“There is a substantial distinction between the Justices of the Supreme Court and the members of the House of Representatives. There are only three Justice-members while there are six Legislator-members of the HRET. Hence, there is a valid classification. The classification is justified because it was placed to ensure the presence of members from both the Judicial and Legislative branches of the government to constitute a quorum. There is no violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” the SC pointed out.
Reyes also challenged the alleged ambiguity in the HRET rules, particularly on cases of inhibition of members, under Rules 6 and 69.
However, the high court held that a member of the HRET who inhibits or is disqualified from participating in the deliberations cannot be considered present for the purpose of having a quorum.
The SC said that Rule 69 “clearly shows that the SC and the House of Representatives have the authority to designate a Special Member or Members who could act as temporary replacement or replacements in cases when one or some of the Members of the Tribunal inhibit from a case or are disqualified from participating in the deliberations of a particular election contest when the required quorum cannot be met.”
“There is no basis to petitioner’s claim that a member who inhibits or otherwise disqualified can sit in the deliberations to achieve the required quorum,” the high court said.
The tribunal also rejected Reyes argument that the Revised Rules of the HRET expanded the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on cases involving members of the House of Representatives.
“The HRET’s jurisdiction is provided under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. There is no room for the Comelec to assume jurisdiction because HRET’s jurisdiction is constitutionally mandated,” it said.
The SC emphasized that the “filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto should be within fifteen (15) days from June 30 of the election year if the winning candidate was proclaimed on or before said date; however, if the winning candidate was proclaimed after June 30 of the election year, within fifteen (15) days from the date of promulgation.”