Lopez v.
Roxas | No. L-25716 (Phil) | July 28,
1966 | Concepcion,
C.J. | Topic: Courts. Who interprets the
Constitution and the law? Judicial
power defined. |
FACTS:
- Petitioner Lopez and respondent Roxas were VP candidates on November 9, 1965.
- Lopez won the election with a plurality of 26,724 votes more over respondent Roxas.
- On 1/6/1966, respondent filed with the Presidential Tribunal (PET), Election Protest No. 2.
- Respondent contests petitioner herein as official winner of VP.
- On 2/22/1966, petitioner presents to the Supreme Court, a preliminary injunction against aforementioned Tribunal from hearing and deciding the contest, questioning the constitutionality of RA No. 1793, or “An act constituting an independent presidential electoral tribunal.”
ISSUES and HELD:
Whether
or not said Tribunal is “unconstitutional” and that all proceedings taken by it
are a nullity. [No]
- Section
1 of the RA No. 1793 provides that: “There shall be an independent Presidential
Electoral Tribunal…which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election…of the president-elect and vice-president-elect of the
Philippines.
Whether
or not the Congress, by law, has an authority to an election contest for
President and Vice-President. [No]
The
authority to be the judge of contest belongs upon the Members of the Supreme
Court that are part of the Tribunal and the power to be the judge of
contests is essential judicial, following the very principle of
separation of powers of the government.
Whether
or not the recount of votes by Tribunal is inconsistent with the exclusive
power of Congress to canvass the election returns of President and VP and
nullify the constitutional authority of Congress to proclaim the President and
VP.
[No]
The
power of Congress to canvass the returns and declare the results is entirely
different in nature from and not inconsistent with the jurisdiction vested in
RA No. 1793.
Congress merely acts a
national board of canvassers charged with the ministerial and executive
duty to make such declaration.
On the other hand, the
PET has the judicial power to determine if said declaration has any
irregularities.
If said declaration
does not reflect the true result, the Congress has power to recount the ballots
casts and pass upon the validity of each vote to determine the true result.
Whether
or not the Constitution is truly silent on such authorization, providing no
amendment to the Constitution that mentions holding an election protest for
both the positions of both the President and Vice-President, other than
contests for Members of Congress. [No]
RA
1793 specifically states the opposite, namely, that the Constitution intended
to vest Congress with the discretion to determine by law whether or not the
election of a president-elect or vice-president-elect may be contested and if
so, which court of justice shall have jurisdiction.
It is debatable whether
such jurisdiction may be conferred, by statute to a board comprising of both
Members of the Supreme Court and the Congress.
Whether
or not the tenure of the President and VP is fixed by the Constitution and
cannot be abridged by an Act of Congress, like Republic Act No. 1793. [No]
The
authority of the PET would not abridge the constitutional tenure, should
evidence be introduced in the election protest that the protestant is
truly the president-elect or vice-president-elect.
Whether
or not the constitutional convention had rejected the original plan to include
a provision in the Constitution permitting the Tribunal. [No]
When
Claro M. Recto, Chairman of the Constitutional Convention of 1934, proposed to remove
the provision creating an Electoral Commission, it was his intention that this
matter of electoral protests for both President and VP would be
better looked into by the legislative department and that its measures should
be set by ordinary legislation. He went on to reiterate this 22 years
later during the course of the debates leading up to the passing of RA No.
1973.
Whether
or not it is illegal for the justices of the SC to sit as members of the PET. [No]
RA
No. 1793 provides that the Tribunal “shall be composed of the Chief Justice and
the other ten Members of the SC.”
Whether
or not the PET is a court inferior to the SC. [No]
RA
No. 1793 has not created a new or separated court and merely conferred upon the
SC the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Resulting court may be
likened to courts of first instance performing functions of ordinary courts of
first instance or court of land registration or other municipal courts over its
own respective jurisdictions.
In this instance and
in all instances mentioned prior as examples, the court is only one,
although functions are distinct and, even separate whether in authority,
jurisdiction or characteristics
Differing functions,
jurisdictions and powers than those of another court does not specifically mean
that it is inferior to the other, for one cannot be inferior to itself. Thus,
the PET, too, is not inferior to the SC as it the same Court, although
the PET has limited functions and scope than that of the SC.
Whether
the Congress cannot, by legislation, appoint in effect the members of the PET. [No]
The
Constitution ordains that the “Congress shall have the power to defined,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts.”
The
enactment of RA 1793 does not entail an assumption by Congress of the power of
appointment, as given only to the President, and merely connotes the imposition
of additional duties upon the Members of the SC.
Imposition of new duties
neither
creates a new office or appoints an officer.
Petition
dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment