Title
Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 141489 Nov 29, 2002
The Supreme Court dismisses petitions seeking inclusion of Senator Aquilino Q.
Pimentel, Jr. and party-list representatives in the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on Appointments, ruling that the House
has the discretion to choose its members as long as proportional representation
is maintained, and the petitioners lacked the necessary personal and substantial
interest to challenge the composition.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 141489)
Parties Involved and Argument Presented
Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. and several party-list representatives filed a
petition to include themselves in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) and the Commission on Appointments (CA).
They argue that the composition of these bodies violates the constitutional
requirement of proportional representation.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions.
The Court ruled that the party-list representatives lack the required numerical
strength and personal interest to challenge the composition of the HRET and the CA.
The Court explains that under the Constitution, the Senate and the House of
Representatives have the authority to elect their members to these bodies, subject to
the rule of proportional representation.
The Court cannot interfere with the exercise of this duty by the House, unless there
is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Lack of Allegations and Personal Interest
The party-list representatives have not alleged that they have been unlawfully
deprived of seats in the HRET or the CA.
They have not claimed to have been nominated by their party-list groups for
membership in these bodies.
Therefore, they do not possess the personal and substantial interest required to
challenge the composition of the HRET and the CA.
Procedural Defects and Lack of Merit
The petitions are procedurally defective and lack merit.
The primary recourse for the party-list representatives is with the House of
Representatives.
The Court cannot speculate on the actions the House may take if party-list
representatives are duly nominated for membership in the HRET and the CA.
No Grave Abuse of Discretion
The Court finds that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HRET
and the CA in response to the letters of Senator Pimentel.
A constitutional question will not be heard and resolved unless there is an actual
controversy, a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional issue, and the resolution of the constitutional issue is indispensable to
the final determination of the controversy.
Academic Nature of the Issues Raised
The issues raised in the petitions have been rendered academic by subsequent
events.
A new set of district and party-list representatives were elected to the House.
Therefore, the Court dismisses the petitions.
Summary of the Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court dismisses the petitions filed by Senator Pimentel and the party-
list representatives.
They lack the required numerical strength and personal interest to challenge the
composition of the HRET and the CA.
The primary recourse for the party-list representatives is with the House of
Representatives.
The issues raised in the petitions have been rendered academic by subsequent
events.
