Abbas v SET Digest

Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) Electoral Tribunals Date: October 27, 1988 Ponente: Gancayco J. SUMMARY: This is a petition to nullify the resolutions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal denying a petition for mass disqualification of 22 senators. The Senate Electoral Tribunal is composed of 3 justices and 6 senators. House rules state that the minimum to have a quorum would be to have at least 3 senators and 1 Justice. All the senators who are members of the tribunal have interest in the case of disqualification given that they are respondents. The issue is then is if the 3 justices alone, being the only remaining members of the SET, did not commit grave abuse of discretion denying the petition. The court holds that the SET can render judgement given the unusual circumstances. Petition Dismissed. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the SET can render judgement given a lack of Senator-members? FACTS: 1. This is a petition to nullify the resolution of the SET denying the Motion for Disqualification/ Inhibition against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators elect in the May 11, 1987 congressional elections by the Commission on Elections. 2. The Petitioners filed with the SET a Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senator-Members thereof from the hearing and resolution of the case on the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case. Senators Saguisag and Paterno also filed for disqualification of Senator-Members. 3. Senator Enrile voluntary inhibited himself from performing and the 5 senators were disqualified to be

part of the tribunal leaving only the 3 Justices to be part of the Tribunal. 4. Petitioners argue that the SET cannot make a judgement because there are no senator-members. HOLDING: Art VI Sec 17 is a clear expression of an intent that all (such) contests shall be resolved by a panel or body in which their (the Senators’) peers in that Chamber are represented The Constitutional provision clearly mandates the participation in the same process of decision of a representative or representatives of the Supreme Court. In this situation where senators cannot sit in the tribunal due to the proposed mass disqualification, if sanctioned and ordered, would leave the Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty that no other court or body can perform, but which it cannot lawfully discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire membership of Senators. The overriding consideration is that the Tribunal be not prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to perform, the performance of which is in the highest public interest as evidenced by its being expressly imposed by no less than the fundamental law. RULING: The charge that the respondent Tribunal gravely abused its discretion in its disposition of the incidents referred to must therefore fail. In the circumstances, it acted well within law and principle in dismissing the petition for disqualification or inhibition filed by herein petitioners. The instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

Related Provisions: Art VI Sec. 17 1987 Consti. 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 partylist system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

The Tribunal’s Rules (Section 24)— requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolutions of whatever nature—is a proviso that where more than four (4) members are disqualified, the remaining members shall constitute a quorum, if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice, and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. The respondent Tribunal was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and six (6) Senators, namely: Senior Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap (Chairman). Associate Justices Andres R. Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., and Senators Joseph E. Estrada (Replaced by Juan Ponce Enrile) , Neptali A. Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr., Mamintal A.J. Tamano and Victor S. Ziga.