Scribd
Upload
116 views1 page

DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, Petitioner, vs. Representatives Marciano M. Pineda, Et Al. G.R. 97710 Facts

Bondoc and Pineda contested a Congressional seat, with Pineda initially declared the winner but Bondoc later declared the winner by the House Electoral Tribunal. However, one Tribunal member who voted for Bondoc was expelled from his party for doing so. The party then moved to withdraw this member from the Tribunal. The Tribunal chairwoman removed the member. The Supreme Court ruled that the Tribunal abused its discretion by allowing the withdrawal after already making a decision, and the Court could properly hear the case.

Uploaded by

Chickoy Ramirez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
116 views1 page

DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, Petitioner, vs. Representatives Marciano M. Pineda, Et Al. G.R. 97710 Facts

Bondoc and Pineda contested a Congressional seat, with Pineda initially declared the winner but Bondoc later declared the winner by the House Electoral Tribunal. However, one Tribunal member who voted for Bondoc was expelled from his party for doing so. The party then moved to withdraw this member from the Tribunal. The Tribunal chairwoman removed the member. The Supreme Court ruled that the Tribunal abused its discretion by allowing the withdrawal after already making a decision, and the Court could properly hear the case.

Uploaded by

Chickoy Ramirez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DR. EMIGDIO A.

BONDOC, petitioner,
vs.
REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. PINEDA, et al.
G.R. 97710

FACTS :

Bondoc and Pineda were rivals for a Congressional seat in the 4th District of
Pampanga. Bondoc is a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino while
Pineda is a member of the Nacionalista Party. Pineda won in that election.
However, Bondoc contested the result and was subsequently declared as the
winner by the House Electoral Tribunal (HRET). One member of the Electoral
Tribunal, Juanito Camasura Jr and a member of LDP confessed to Rep. jose
Cojuangco (LDP’s leader) that he voted for Bondoc. This resulted to his expulsion
from the LDP. Pineda then moved that they withdraw Camasura from the HRET.
Camasura was then removed by HRET’s chairwoman Justice Herrera.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the HRET acted in grave abuse of discretion.

HELD:

The SC can settle the controversy in the case at bar without encroaching upon
the function of the legislature particularly a part thereof, HRET. In time, the duty
of the courts to look into the constitutionality and validity of legislative or
executive action, especially when private rights are affected, came to be
recognized. As the SC pointed out in the celebrated Aquino case, a showing
that plenary power is granted either department of government may not be an
obstacle to judicial inquiry, for the improvident exercise or the abuse thereof
may give rise to a justiciable controversy. Since “a constitutional grant of
authority is not usually unrestricted, limitations being provided for as to what may
be done and how it is to be accomplished, necessarily then, it becomes the
responsibility of the courts to ascertain whether the two coordinate branches
have adhered to the mandate of the fundamental law. The question thus posed
is judicial rather than political. The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of
the Constitution is upheld. In here, when Camasura was rescinded by the
tribunal, a decision has already been made, members of the tribunal have
already voted regarding the electoral contest involving Pineda and Bondoc
wherein Bondoc won. The LDP cannot withdraw their representative from the
HRET after the tribunal has already reached a decision. And the tribunal was not
supposed to comply with the proposal of the LDP. But since the HRET did then
there is an abuse of discretion. The SC can take cognizance of the case.

You might also like