Understanding the Constitutionality and Powers of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal

G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010

Imagine a scenario where the very foundation of a presidential election is questioned. Who has the authority to decide, and is that authority legitimate? This was the core issue in the case of Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, which challenged the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). The case delves into the heart of Philippine constitutional law, exploring the powers and limitations of the Supreme Court and its role in safeguarding the integrity of presidential elections.

At its core, this case examines whether the creation and operation of the PET, composed of the Justices of the Supreme Court, violates the separation of powers principle enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.

The Legal Framework: Electoral Contests and Judicial Power

The Philippine Constitution, specifically Article VII, Section 4, grants the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, the sole power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President. It also empowers the Court to promulgate its rules for this purpose. This provision is central to understanding the PET’s existence and authority.

The Constitution also contains provisions regarding the Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and the House of Representatives. These tribunals, along with the PET, are tasked with resolving election disputes within their respective jurisdictions. Understanding the scope of judicial power, as defined in Article VIII of the Constitution, is crucial. This power includes settling disputes involving legally demandable rights and determining whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion by any government branch or instrumentality.

Key Constitutional Provisions:

• Article VII, Section 4: “The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.”
• Article VIII, Section 1: “Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law…”
• Article VIII, Section 12: “The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.”

The Case: Macalintal vs. PET

Atty. Macalintal, a prominent election lawyer, filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the PET. He argued that the PET was an illegally created “separate tribunal,” with its own budget, seal, and personnel, which contravened the constitutional provision granting the Supreme Court the power to judge presidential election contests. He further contended that designating Supreme Court Justices as members of the PET violated the prohibition against designating justices to agencies performing quasi-judicial functions.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events and arguments:

• The Challenge: Atty. Macalintal questioned the PET’s constitutionality, claiming it was a separate tribunal that violated the separation of powers.
• The Argument: He highlighted the PET’s separate budget, seal, and personnel as evidence of its unconstitutional nature.
• The OSG’s Response: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the petition lacked legal standing and that the PET’s creation was constitutional.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of the PET. The Court emphasized that the Constitution grants it the power to act as the sole judge of presidential election contests and to promulgate rules for that purpose. The PET, in the Court’s view, was simply the mechanism by which the Supreme Court exercised this constitutional mandate.

Key Quotes from the Decision:

• “The Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate to act as sole judge of election contests involving our country’s highest public officials, and its rule-making authority in connection therewith, is not restricted; it includes all necessary powers implicit in the exercise thereof.”
• “The establishment of the PET simply constitutionalized what was statutory before the 1987 Constitution.”

The Court also noted that Atty. Macalintal had previously appeared before the PET as counsel for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, thus estopping him from challenging its jurisdiction at this later stage.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This ruling solidifies the PET’s role as the final arbiter of presidential election disputes in the Philippines. It reinforces the Supreme Court’s authority to create and operate the PET as a means of fulfilling its constitutional duty. The decision also serves as a reminder that challenges to the PET’s constitutionality must be raised promptly and by parties with proper legal standing.

Key Lessons:

• The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is constitutional.
• The Supreme Court has the authority to create and operate the PET.
• Challenges to the PET’s constitutionality must be raised promptly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)?

A: The PET is a tribunal composed of the Justices of the Supreme Court that has the sole authority to decide election contests involving the President and Vice-President of the Philippines.

Q: Is the PET a separate court from the Supreme Court?

A: No. The PET is not a separate court but rather the Supreme Court acting in a specific capacity to resolve presidential election disputes.

Q: What happens if someone questions the results of a presidential election?

A: A candidate who loses a presidential election can file an election protest with the PET, challenging the results based on alleged irregularities or violations of election laws.

Q: Can the decisions of the PET be appealed?

A: No. The decisions of the PET are final and not appealable, as the Constitution designates the Supreme Court (sitting as the PET) as the sole judge of presidential election contests.

Q: Why is it important for the Philippines to have a PET?

A: The PET ensures the integrity of presidential elections by providing a mechanism to resolve disputes and ensure that the rightful winner is declared. This promotes stability and public confidence in the electoral process.

Q: What is the impact of this ruling on future presidential elections?

A: This ruling reinforces the PET’s authority and legitimacy, providing a clear legal framework for resolving any future presidential election disputes. It also discourages frivolous challenges to the PET’s constitutionality.

ASG Law specializes in election law and constitutional law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.