8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988d 651

Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

*
No. L-83767. October 27, 1988.

FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, HOMOBONO A. ADAZA,

ALEJANDRO D. ALMENDRAS, ABUL KAHYR D.
ALONTO, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, RENE G. ESPINA,
WILSON P. GAMBOA, ROILO S. GOLEZ, ROMEO G.
JALOSJOS, EVA R. ESTRADA-KALAW, WENCESLAO R.
LAGUMBAY, VICENTE P. MAGSAYSAY, JEREMIAS U.
MONTEMAYOR, BLAS F. OPLE, RAFAEL P.
PALMARES, ZOSIMO JESUS M. PAREDES, JR.,
VICENTE G. PUYAT, EDITH N. RABAT, ISIDRO S.
RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, LORENZO G.
TEVES, ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, and FERNANDO R.
VELOSO, petitioners, vs. THE SENATE ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL, respondent.

Constitutional Law; Composition of the Senate Electoral

Tribunal; The Constitutional provision clearly mandates the
participation in the same process of decision of a representative or
representatives of the Supreme Court.—It seems quite clear to us
that in thus providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices
of the Supreme Court and Members of the Senate, the
Constitution intended that both those “Judicial” and “legislative”
components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding
all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
Senators. The respondent Tribunal correctly stated one part of
this proposition when it held that said provision “x x x is a clear
expression of an intent that all (such) contests x x x shall be
resolved by a panel or body in which their (the Senators’) peers in
that Chamber are represented.” The other part, of course, is that
the constitutional provision just as clearly mandates the
participation in the same process of decision of a representative or
representatives of the Supreme Court.
Same; Same; Same; Quorum; The Senate Electoral Tribunal
cannot legally function as such, absent its entire membership of
Senators and no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three
Justices-Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/8
8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

senatorial election contest.—Let us not be misunderstood as

saying that no Senator-Member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal
may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting in judgment on any
case before said Tribunal. Every Member of the Tribunal may, as
his conscience

_______________

* EN BANC.

652

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

dictates, refrain from participating in the resolution of a case

where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases
would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment.
What we are merely saying is that in the light of the Constitution,
the Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such,
absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment
of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the
power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest.

FELICIANO, J.: Concurring

Constitutional Law; Composition of the Senate Electoral

Tribunal; Quorum; Should any three (3) Senator-Members of the
Senate Electoral Tribunal voluntarily inhibit or disqualify
themselves from participating in the proceedings, a tribunal,
resulting to a balance between three (3) Justices and three (3)
Senators as members, still constitute more than a quorum.—
Should any three (3) Senator-Members of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal voluntarily inhibit or disqualify themselves from
participating in the proceedings in SET Case No. 002-87, a
Tribunal would result that would be balanced between the three
(3) Justice-Members and the three (3) Senator-Members and still
constitute more than a bare quorum. In such a Tribunal, both the
considerations of public policy and fair play raised by petitioners
and the constitutional intent above noted concerning the mixed
“judicial” and “legislative” composition of the Electoral Tribunals
would appear to be substantially met and served. This
dénouement, however, must be voluntarily reached and not
compelled by certiorari.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/8
8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari to review the

resolutions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION

GANCAYCO, J.:

This is a Special Civil Action for certiorari to nullify and set

aside the Resolutions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal
dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988, denying,
respectively, the petitioners’ Motion for Disqualification or
Inhibition and their Motion for Reconsideration thereafter
filed.
On October 9, 1987, the petitioners filed before the
respon-

653

VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988 653

Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

dent Tribunal an election contest docketed as SET Case

No. 002-87 against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition
who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11, 1987
congressional elections by the Commission on Elections.
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, Neptali A.
Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr., Mamintal
A.J. Tamano and Victor S. Ziga.
On November 17, 1987, the petitioners, with the
exception of Senator Estrada but including Senator Juan
Ponce Enrile (who had been designated Member of the
Tribunal replacing Senator Estrada, the latter having
affiliated with the Liberal Party and resigned as the
Opposition’s representative in the Tribunal) filed with the
respondent Tribunal a Motion for Disqualification or
Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from the
hearing and resolution of SET Case No. 002-87 on the
ground that all of them are interested parties to said case,
as respondents therein. Before that, Senator Rene A.V.
Saguisag, one of the respondents in the same case, had
filed a Petition to Recuse and later a Supplemental Petition
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/8
8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

to Recuse the same Senators-Members of the Tribunal on

essentially the same ground. Senator Vicente T. Paterno,
another respondent in the same contest, thereafter filed his
comments on both the petitions to recuse and the motion
for disqualification or inhibition. Memoranda on the subject
were also filed and oral arguments were heard by the
respondent Tribunal, with the latter afterwards issuing the
Resolutions now complained of.
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile in the meantime had
voluntarily inhibited himself from participating in the
hearings and deliberations of the respondent Tribunal in
both SET Case No. 002-87 and SET Case No. 001-87, the
latter being another contest filed by Augusto S. Sanchez
against him and Senator Santanina T. Rasul as alternative
respondents, citing his personal involvement as a party in
the two cases.
The petitioners, in essence, argue that considerations of
public policy and the norms of fair play and due process
imperatively require the mass disqualification sought and
that the doctrine of necessity which they perceive to be the
founda-

654

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

tion of the questioned Resolutions does not rule out a

solution both practicable and constitutionally
unobjectionable, namely; the amendment of the respondent
Tribunal’s Rules of procedure so as to permit the contest
being decided by only three Members of the Tribunal.
The proposed amendment to 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. Obviously tailored to fit the situation created
by the petition for disqualification, this would, in the
context of that situation, leave the resolution of the contest
to the only three Members who would remain, all Justices
of this Court, whose disqualification is not sought.
We do not agree with petitioners’ thesis that the
suggested device is neither unfeasible nor repugnant to the
Constitution. We opine that in fact the most fundamental
objection to such proposal lies in the plain terms and intent
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/8
8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

of the Constitution itself which, in its Article VI, Section

17, creates the Senate Electoral Tribunal, ordains its
composition and defines its jurisdiction and powers.

“Sec. 17. 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 party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal
shall be its Chairman.”

It seems quite clear to us that in thus providing for a

Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the Supreme
Court and Members of the Senate, the Constitution
intended that both those “judicial” and “legislative”
components commonly share the duty and authority of
deciding all contests relating to the

655

VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988 655

Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

election, returns and qualifications of Senators. The

respondent Tribunal correctly stated one part of this
proposition when it held that said provision “x x x is a clear
expression of an intent that all (such) contests x x x shall
be resolved by a panel or body in which their 1 (the
Senators’) peers in that Chamber are represented.” The
other part, of course, is that the constitutional provision
just as clearly mandates the participation in the same
process of decision of a representative or representatives of
the Supreme Court.
Said intent is even more clearly signaled by the fact that
the proportion of Senators to Justices in the prescribed
membership of the Senate Electoral Tribunal is 2 to 1—an
unmistakable indication that the “legislative component”
cannot be totally excluded from participation in the
resolution of senatorial election contests, without doing
violence to the spirit and intent of the Constitution.
Where, as here, a situation is created which precludes
the substitution of any Senator sitting in the Tribunal by

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/8
8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

any of his other colleagues in the Senate without inviting

the same objections to the substitute’s competence, 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.
To our mind, this is the overriding consideration—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.
It is aptly noted in the first of the questioned
Resolutions that the framers of the Constitution could not
have been unaware of the possibility of an election contest
that would involve all 24 Senators-elect, six of whom would
inevitably have to sit in judgment thereon, Indeed, such
possibility might surface again in the wake of the 1992
elections when once more, but for the last time, all 24 seats
in the Senate will be at

_______________

1 Page 2, Resolution of public respondent Tribunal of May 27, 1988; p.

25, Rollo.

656

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

stake. Yet the Constitution provides no scheme or mode for

settling such unusual situations or for the substitution of
Senators designated to the Tribunal whose disqualification
may be sought. Litigants in such situations must simply
place their trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness
and sense of justice of the Members of the Tribunal.
Justices and Senators, singly and collectively.
Let us not be misunderstood as saying that no Senator-
Member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal may inhibit or
disqualify himself from sitting in judgment on any case
before said Tribunal. Every Member of the Tribunal may,
as his conscience dictates, refrain from participating in the
resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his
personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an
objective and impartial judgment. What we are merely
saying is that in the light of the Constitution, the Senate
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/8
8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such, absent

its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment
of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone
the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election
contest.
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.

          Fernan (C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Padilla,

Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortés, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and
Regalado, JJ., concur.
     Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr. and Paras, JJ., no part.

     Feliciano, J., see separate concurring statement.

FELICIANO, J.: Concurring

I quite agree with what Mr. Justice Gancayco has written

into his opinion for the Court. I would merely like to carry
forward however slightly the analysis found in the
penultimate paragraph of his opinion.
657

VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988 657

Cuerdo vs. Commission on Audit

Should any three (3) Senator-Members of the Senate

Electoral Tribunal voluntarily inhibit or disqualify
themselves from participating in the proceedings in SET
Case No. 002-87, a Tribunal would result that would be
balanced between the three (3) Justice-Members and the
three (3) Senator-Members and still constitute more than a
bare quorum. In such a Tribunal, both the considerations of
public policy and fair play raised by petitioners and the
constitutional intent above noted concerning the mixed
“judicial” and “legislative” composition of the Electoral
Tribunals would appear to be substantially met and served.
This dénouement, however, must be voluntarily reached
and not compelled by certiorari.
Petition dismissed.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/8
8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 166

Notes.—The legislature as creator of corporations can

define the extent of their powers and can deny the power to
own lands. (Director vs. Lood, 124 SCRA 460.)
Judiciary has to refer to legislative discretion in the
view of programs for economic development and social
progress. (Heirs of Juancho Ardana vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA
220.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b41cf795976d24a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/8