Drilon vs. De Venecia Jr.

A party challenging the composition of a House contingent in the Commission on Appointments must first seek recourse from the House of Representatives or Senate under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and must show direct injury; absent these, the Supreme Court will not resolve the constitutional merits of the challenge.

The Liberal Party of the Philippines, through Franklin M. Drilon and several House members, and Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal of PDP-Laban separately questioned the party representation in the Commission on Appointments during the 14th Congress. The Commission on Appointments is constituted under Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which requires each House of Congress to elect its contingent on the basis of proportional representation of political parties. The controversy implicated the respective Houses’ constitutional authority to elect their own Commission on Appointments members and the conditions for judicial intervention.

In August 2007, the Senate and the House of Representatives elected their respective contingents to the Commission on Appointments. The Senate contingent was composed of Senators Maria Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal (PDP-Laban), Joker Arroyo (KAMPI), Alan Peter Cayetano (Lakas-CMD), Panfilo Lacson (UNO), Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada (PMP), Juan Ponce Enrile (PMP), Loren Legarda (NPC), Richard Gordon (Lakas-CMD), Mar Roxas (LP), Lito Lapid (Lakas-CMD), and Miriam Defensor-Santiago (PRP). The House contingent was composed of Reps. Prospero C. Nograles, Eduardo C. Zialcita, Abdullah D. Dimaporo, Jose Carlos V. Lacson, Eileen R. Ermita-Buhain, and Jose V. Yap, all of Lakas-CMD; Reps. Rodolfo T. Albano III and Eduardo R. Gullas of KAMPI; Reps. Rodolfo “Ompong” G. Plaza and Conrado M. Estrella of NPC; Rep. Emmylou J. Taliño-Mendoza of NP; and Rep. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva of CIBAC Party List.

In the second week of August 2007, petitioners in G.R. No. 180055 went to then Speaker Jose de Venecia to ask for one seat for the Liberal Party in the Commission on Appointments. Speaker De Venecia said he would study their demand. During the September 3, 2007 session of the House, Rep. Tañada requested one seat for the Liberal Party, and Rep. Neptali Gonzales II begged the indulgence of the Liberal Party to allow the Legal Department to study the matter. By letter of September 10, 2007, Rep. Tañada requested the Secretary General of the House to reconstitute the House contingent to include one seat for the Liberal Party in compliance with Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution, and also brought the matter to Speaker De Venecia, reiterating that the Liberal Party had at least 20 members in the 14th Congress. As of October 15, 2007, no report or recommendation had been proffered by the Legal Department, prompting Rep. Tañada to request one within three days. Atty. Grace Andres of the Legal Affairs Bureau of the House informed Rep. Tañada that the department was constrained to withhold its legal opinion because the handling lawyer was directed to secure documents necessary to establish some members’ party affiliations.

Senator Madrigal, by separate letters of April 17, 2008 to Senator Villar and Speaker Nograles, claimed that the Senate contingent violated proportional representation because PMP had two representatives although it had only two members in the Senate and was entitled to only one seat; KAMPI had only one member in the Senate and was not entitled to a Commission on Appointments seat yet was represented; PRP had only one member in the Senate and was not entitled to a seat yet was represented; if Senators Richard Gordon and Pilar Juliana Cayetano were Independents, Senator Gordon could not be a member of the Commission on Appointments as Independents cannot be represented even though there would be three Independents in the Commission; and if Senator Alan Peter Cayetano was now NP, he could still sit in the Commission representing NP. She also claimed that the House contingent violated proportional representation because Lakas-CMD had five members in the Commission although entitled to only four; KAMPI had three members although entitled to only two; the Liberal Party was not represented although entitled to one nominee; and Party-List CIBAC had a representative although it had only two members in the House and was not entitled to any seat. She requested reorganization of the Commission’s membership and that all actions of the Commission be held in abeyance.

By letter of May 13, 2008, Senator Madrigal again wrote Senator Villar, noting that the Committee on Budget and Management of Senator Mar Roxas had endorsed the ad interim appointment of Rolando G. Andaya as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management for approval by the Commission on Appointments in plenary, and stating that the serious constitutional questions she raised should be settled before the plenary acted on the endorsement. On May 19, 2008, she sent another letter declaring that she could not in good conscience continue to participate in the proceedings of the Commission until she received a response and until the constitutional issue of the Commission’s composition was resolved by its leadership, and that without such resolution she would be forced to invoke Section 20 of the Commission on Appointments rules against every official whose confirmation would be submitted for deliberation. The Commission on Appointments Committee on Rules and Resolutions, by letter-comment of May 26, 2008, opined that the Commission had neither the power nor the discretion to reject a member elected by either House, and that complaints about the election of a member should be addressed to the body that elected them. By letter of May 28, 2008, Senator Villar advised Senator Madrigal that he had transmitted her letters to the Committee on Rules and Resolutions, but in view of her manifestation during the May 26, 2008 meeting and the written comment of Senator Arroyo that complaints on the election of a member should be addressed to the electing body, he instructed that the original copies of her letters be transmitted to the Senate Secretary for inclusion in the Order of Business of the Senate so that her concerns could be addressed in caucus and/or plenary. On June 2, 2008, Senator Madrigal reiterated her request that all actions of the Commission be held in abeyance pending reorganization of both contingents, and on June 13, 2008 she filed the second petition.

Later, Rep. Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. of the Liberal Party was designated as a member of the House contingent in the Commission on Appointments in replacement of Rep. Eduardo M. Gullas of KAMPI. Petitioners in G.R. No. 180055 then moved to withdraw their petition as moot and academic.

• Liberal Party Entitlement (G.R. No. 180055): Petitioners argued that the Liberal Party, with at least twenty members in the House of Representatives who signed the petition, is constitutionally entitled to one seat in the Commission on Appointments under Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution.
• Grave Abuse in House Contingent (G.R. No. 180055): Petitioners maintained that the House respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in constituting the Commission on Appointments in contravention of proportional representation by depriving the Liberal Party of its constitutional entitlement.
• Reliefs Sought (G.R. No. 180055): Petitioners prayed for prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto, including nullification of the Commission’s composition, restraint of House members from sitting and participating, ouster of affected respondents, and reconstitution of the Commission to include Rep. Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. as the Liberal Party’s nominee.
• Proportional Representation Violations (G.R. No. 183055): Senator Madrigal alleged that the Senate and House contingents violated proportional party representation, specifying alleged excess seats for PMP, KAMPI, Lakas-CMD, and CIBAC, and the absence of a Liberal Party seat.
• Continuous Proceedings Despite Unconstitutional Composition (G.R. No. 183055): She alleged grave abuse of discretion in the Commission’s continued conduct of hearings and proceedings despite its allegedly unconstitutional composition.
• Failure to Reorganize (G.R. No. 183055): She alleged grave abuse of discretion in the failure, despite repeated demands, to reorganize the Commission on Appointments in accordance with the mandated proportional party representation.

• Power of Each House (Villar/Aspiras): Respondents argued that the power to elect members to the Commission on Appointments belongs to each House of Congress under the Constitution, and that the petition was not directed at them.
• No Need for Complete Membership (Villar/Aspiras): They argued that the Constitution does not require complete membership for the Commission to function; only a majority of all its members is required for it to validly conduct proceedings and transact business.
• No Grave Abuse; LP Not Proper Party (De Venecia/Defensor): Respondents argued that the acts complained of did not constitute grave abuse of discretion; the Liberal Party did not possess the requisite number of members for a Commission seat and was not the proper party for quo warranto; petitioners failed to exhaust available remedies; and conflicting claims on party affiliation required trial.
• Lack of Standing; Primary Jurisdiction; Estoppel (Villar on G.R. No. 183055): Senator Villar argued that Senator Madrigal had no standing; failed to observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort because each House has the sole function of reconstituting or changing the composition of its own contingent; was estopped; and that prohibition, mandamus, and a temporary restraining order were unavailable.
• Mootness; No Grave Abuse; House Remedy; No Verification (Nograles): Speaker Nograles argued that the House-related petitions had become moot upon the election of Rep. Umali; the acts complained of did not constitute grave abuse of discretion; the remedy rested first with the House; Senator Madrigal had no standing; and the petition lacked verification and certification of non-forum shopping under Rule 65, Sections 2 and 3, and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 28-91.

• Mootness of G.R. No. 180055: Whether the first petition became moot and academic upon the designation of Representative Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. as a Liberal Party member of the House contingent to the Commission on Appointments.
• Locus Standi of Senator Madrigal: Whether Senator Madrigal has legal standing to file the second petition.
• Primary Jurisdiction / Prior Recourse: Whether prior recourse to the House of Representatives or Senate is necessary before Senator Madrigal may invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
• Prematurity of G.R. No. 183055: Whether the second petition was premature.
• Party Affiliation Question: Whether the Court should resolve the suggested party affiliations of Senators Pilar Juliana Cayetano, Richard Gordon, and Alan Peter Cayetano.
• Proportional Representation in the Commission on Appointments: Whether the composition of the Commission on Appointments violated the constitutional requirement of proportional representation.

• Mootness of G.R. No. 180055: Yes. The petition was rendered moot by the designation of Rep. Umali, and the Court granted the motion to withdraw.
• Locus Standi of Senator Madrigal: No. She failed to show direct injury; the petition did not allege that she or PDP-Laban was deprived of a Commission seat or had personal and substantial interest.
• Primary Jurisdiction / Prior Recourse: Yes. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before bringing the case to court.
• Prematurity of G.R. No. 183055: Yes. The second petition was premature because Senator Madrigal had not first obtained final determination from the House or Senate, and Senator Villar had transmitted her letters to the Senate Secretary for inclusion in the Order of Business.
• Party Affiliation Question: No. The suggested party affiliations involve a question of fact which the Court does not resolve.
• Proportional Representation in the Commission on Appointments: Not reached. The petition was dismissed on standing and prematurity grounds; the Court did not resolve the merits of the alleged constitutional violation.

• Mootness of G.R. No. 180055: The first petition sought to compel inclusion of a Liberal Party member in the House contingent. After Rep. Alfonso V. Umali, Jr. of the Liberal Party was designated as a member of the House contingent in the Commission on Appointments in replacement of Rep. Eduardo M. Gullas of KAMPI, petitioners themselves alleged that the petition had become moot and academic and moved to withdraw. The Court granted the motion and withdrew the petition.
• Locus Standi of Senator Madrigal: The Court found that Senator Madrigal failed to show that she sustained direct injury as a result of the act complained of. Her petition did not allege that she or her political party PDP-Laban was deprived of a seat in the Commission on Appointments, or that she or PDP-Laban possessed personal and substantial interest to confer locus standi. Citing David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court applied the direct-injury requirement.
• Primary Jurisdiction / Prior Recourse: The Court held that Senator Madrigal’s primary recourse rested with the respective Houses of Congress, not the Court. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction dictates that prior recourse to the House is necessary before she may bring her petition to court. The Court adopted the ruling in Sen. Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal: under Sections 17 and 18, Article VI, the Constitution grants each chamber the prerogative to choose its members in the HRET and the Commission on Appointments; party-list representatives must first show to the House that they possess the required strength; only if the House fails to comply with proportional representation may they seek recourse to the Court. Furnishing copies of letters to the Senate President and Speaker did not constitute the primary recourse required. The members claiming deprivation must first show to the House their numerical strength. Senator Villar’s invocation of the doctrine was well-taken.
• Prematurity of G.R. No. 183055: Because Senator Madrigal did not await final determination of the question and instead filed the petition directly, the petition was premature. It bore noting that Senator Villar had already transmitted original copies of her letters to the Senate Secretary for inclusion in the Order of Business of the Senate to address her concerns. Thus, the filing of the second petition was premature.
• Party Affiliation Question: Senator Madrigal’s suggestion that Senators Pilar Juliana Cayetano and Richard Gordon be considered independent, and that Senator Alan Peter Cayetano be considered a member of NP, involved a determination of party affiliations. This is a question of fact which the Court does not resolve.
• Proportional Representation in the Commission on Appointments: The Court did not reach the merits of whether the Commission’s composition violated proportional representation. The second petition failed on procedural grounds—lack of standing and prematurity—and the first petition was withdrawn as moot. Thus, no ruling on the constitutional merits was made.

• Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction — Where the Constitution grants each House of Congress the authority to elect its members to the Commission on Appointments and the electoral tribunals, a party claiming entitlement to a seat must first seek recourse from the House or Senate. The party must show to the legislative body that it possesses the required numerical strength. Only if the House fails to comply with the constitutional directive on proportional representation may the party seek judicial relief. Applied: Senator Madrigal’s direct petition was premature; prior recourse to the House was necessary.
• Locus Standi / Direct Injury — A petitioner must show direct injury or personal and substantial interest in the matter. Applied: Senator Madrigal failed to allege or show that she or PDP-Laban was deprived of a Commission on Appointments seat; her petition was dismissed.
• Moot and Academic — A case becomes moot when a supervening event renders it no longer presenting a justiciable controversy. Applied: The first petition became moot when Rep. Umali was designated to the House contingent; withdrawal was granted.
• Proportional Representation in the Commission on Appointments — Section 18, Article VI requires each House to elect its Commission on Appointments contingent on the basis of proportional representation of political parties. The Court recognized the requirement but did not reach its merits because the petitions were resolved on procedural grounds.
• Party Affiliation as Question of Fact — The determination of a member’s political party affiliation is a question of fact that the Court does not resolve in such a petition. Applied: The Court declined to rule on Senator Madrigal’s suggestions regarding Senators Cayetano and Gordon.
• Extraordinary Remedies of Prohibition and Mandamus — These remedies require no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court cited Pimentel in noting that prior recourse to the House is necessary. Applied: The second petition was dismissed as premature.

• "The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally defined limits, to choose from among its district and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on the House the authority to elect among their members those who would fill the 12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for House members in the Commission on Appointments. Under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, each chamber exercises the power to choose, within constitutionally defined limits, who among their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of each chamber’s respective electoral tribunal." — The Court adopted this excerpt from the Pimentel ruling as the basis for the doctrine of primary jurisdiction over the composition of the Commission on Appointments and the electoral tribunals.
• "Thus, even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET and the CA, their primary recourse clearly rests with the House of Representatives and not this Court." — This passage establishes that direct recourse to the Supreme Court is improper before the House has acted on the claim of entitlement to a seat.
• "Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before petitioners may bring the instant case to the court. Consequently, petitioner’s direct recourse to this Court is premature." — This is the ratio for dismissing the second petition on the ground of prematurity.
• "Senator Madrigal failed to show that she sustained direct injury as a result of the act complained of." — This states the locus standi ruling that independently barred the second petition.

• Sen. Pimentel, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 441 Phil. 492, 503 (2002) — Controlling precedent cited and followed for the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; the Court adopted its holding that party-list representatives must first show to the House their required strength and that direct recourse to the Supreme Court is premature.
• David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160, 327 — Cited for the requirement that a petitioner show direct injury to establish locus standi; applied to Senator Madrigal’s failure to show direct injury.

• Section 18, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Confers on the Senate and the House of Representatives the authority to elect among their members those who will fill the 12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for House members in the Commission on Appointments, with proportional representation of political parties. The Court cited it in explaining that each House has primary authority over its contingent; the merits of the alleged violation were not reached.
• Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Provides that each chamber exercises the power to choose its members in the electoral tribunals. Cited in the Pimentel excerpt adopted by the Court to illustrate the same primary jurisdiction principle for the HRET and the Commission on Appointments.

Reynato S. Puno (Chief Justice), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Renato C. Corona, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion (listed as on official leave), Diosdado M. Peralta, and Lucas P. Bersamin.