EN BANC 2016, those who did not vote for Speaker Alvarez (including the 21

"abstentionists") convened and elected Rep. Suarez as the Minority

July 25, 2017 Leader.6 Thereafter, on August 15, 2016, Rep. (now, Majority Leader)
Farinas moved for the recognition of Rep. Suarez as the Minority Leader.
G.R. No. 227757 This was opposed by Rep. Lagman essentially on the ground that various
"irregularities" attended Rep. Suarez's election as Minority Leader,
particularly: (a) that Rep. Suarez was a member of the Majority as he
REPRESENTATIVE TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.,
voted for Speaker Alvarez, and that his "transfer" to the Minority was
REPRESENTATIVE EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REPRESENTATIVE RAUL A.
irregular; and (b) that the "abstentionists" who constituted the bulk of
DAZA, REPRESENTATIVE EDGAR R. ERICE, REPRESENTATIVE
votes in favor of Rep. Suarez's election as Minority Leader are supposed
EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, REPRESENTATIVE TOMASITO S. VILLARIN,
to be considered independent members of the House, and thus,
and REPRESENTATIVE GARY C. ALEJANO,Petitioners
irregularly deemed as part of the Minority. 7 However, Rep. Lagman's
opposition was overruled, and consequently, Rep. Suarez was officially
vs. recognized as the House Minority Leader.

SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO C. Thus, petitioners filed the instant petition for mandamus, insisting that
FARINAS, and REPRESENTATIVE DANILO E. SUAREZ, Respondents Rep. Baguilat should be recognized as the Minority Leader in light of: (a)
the "long-standing tradition" in the House where the candidate who
DECISION garnered the second (2nd)-highest number of votes for Speakership
automatically becomes the Minority Leader; and (b) the irregularities
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: attending Rep. Suarez's election to said Minority Leader position.

Before the Court is a petition for mandamus1 filed by petitioners For his part, Rep. Suarez maintains that the election of Minority Leader is
Representatives Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., (Rep. Baguilat), Edcel C. an internal matter to the House of Representatives. Thus, absent any
Lagman (Rep. Lagman), Raul A. Daza, Edgar R. Erice, Emmanuel A. finding of violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion, the
Billones, Tomasito S. Villarin, and Gary C. Alejano (collectively, Court cannot interfere with such internal matters of a coequal branch of
petitioners), all members of the House of Representatives, essentially the govemment.8 In the same vein, the Office of the Solicitor General
praying that respondents Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez (Speaker (OSG), on behalf of Speaker Alvarez and Majority Leader Farinas
Alvarez), Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Farifias (Rep. Fariñ as), and contends, inter alia, that the election of Minority Leader is within the
Representative Danilo E. Suarez (Rep. Suarez; collectively, respondents), exclusive realm of the House of Representatives, which the Court cannot
also members of the House of Representatives, be compelled to intrude in pursuant to the principle of separation of powers, as well as
recognize: (a) Rep. Baguilat as the Minority Leader of the 17th Congress the political question doctrine. Similarly, the OSG argues that the
of the House of Representatives; and (b) petitioners as the legitimate recognition of Rep. Suarez as the House Minority Leader was not tainted
members of the Minority. with any violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion and,
thus, must be sustained.9
The Facts
The Issue Before the Court
The petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17 th Congress on July
25, 2016, several news articles surfaced about Rep. Suarez's The essential issue for resolution is whether or not respondents may be
announcement that he sought the adoption or anointment of President compelled via a writ of mandamus to recognize: (a) Rep. Baguilat as the
Rodrigo Roa Duterte's Administration as the "Minority Leader" to lead a Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; and (b) petitioners as
"cooperative minority" in the House of Representatives (or the House), the only legitimate members of the House Minority.
and even purportedly encamped himself in Davao shortly after the May
2016 Elections to get the endorsement of President Duterte and the The Court's Ruling
majority partisans. The petition further claims that to ensure Rep.
Suarez's election as the Minority Leader, the supermajority coalition in The petition is without merit.
the House allegedly "lent" Rep. Suarez some of its members to feign
membership in the Minority, and thereafter, vote for him as the Minority
"Mandamus is defined as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation,
Leader.2
board or person to do the act required to be done when it or he
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
On July 25, 2016, which was prior to the election of the Speaker of the enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully
House of Representatives, then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. Farinas and Rep. excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office or which
Jose Atienza (Rep. Atienza) had an interchange before the Plenary, such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate
wherein the latter elicited the following from the former: (a) all those remedy in the ordinary course oflaw." 10 In Special People, Inc. Foundation
who vote for the winning Speaker shall belong to the Majority and v. Canda,11 the Court explained that the peremptory writ of mandamus is
those who vote for the other candidates shall belong to the Minority; an extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity, and the
(b) those who abstain from voting shall likewise be considered part ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and
of the Minority; and (c) the Minority Leader shall be elected by the speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to the performance of
members of the Minority. 3 Thereafter, the Elections for the Speakership the act to be compelled.12
were held, "[w]ith 252 Members voting for [Speaker] Alvarez, eight [(8)]
voting for Rep. Baguilat, seven [(7)] voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining
After a judicious study of this case, the Court finds that petitioners have
and one [(l)] registering a no vote," 4 thus, resulting in Speaker Alvarez
no clear legal right to the reliefs sought. Records disclose that prior to the
being the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 17 th
Speakership Election held on July 25, 2016, then-Acting Floor Leader Rep.
Congress.
Farinas responded to a parliamentary inquiry from Rep. Atienza as to
who would elect the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
Petitioners hoped that as a "long-standing tradition" of the House - where Rep. Farinas then articulated that: (a) all those who vote for the
the candidate who garnered the second (2nd)-highest number of votes winning Speaker shall belong to the Majority and those who vote for
for Speakership automatically becomes the Minority Leader - Rep. other candidates shall belong to the Minority; (b) those who abstain
Baguilat would be declared and recognized as the Minority Leader. from voting shall likewise be considered part of the Minority; and (c)
However, despite numerous follow-ups from respondents, Rep. Baguilat the Minority Leader shall be elected by the members of the
was never recognized as such.5 Minority.13 Thereafter, the election of the Speaker of the House
proceeded without any objection from any member of Congress,
On August 1, 2016, one of the "abstentionists," Representative Harlin Neil including herein petitioners. Notably, the election of the Speaker of the
Abayon, III (Rep. Abayon), manifested before the Plenary that on July 27, House is the essential and formative step conducted at the first regular
session of the 17th Congress to determine the constituency of the Majority The Presiding Officer motu proprio suspended the session at
and Minority (and later on, their respective leaders), considering that the 12:43p.m.16
Majority would be comprised of those who voted for the winning Speaker
and the Minority of those who did not. The unobjected procession of the After Speaker Alvarez took his oath of office, he administered the oath of
House at this juncture is reflected in its Journal No. 1 dated July 25, office to all Members of the House of the 17th Congress. 17 On the same
2016,14which, based on case law, is conclusive 15 as to what transpired in day, the Deputy Speakers, and other officers of the House (among others,
Congress: the Majority Leader) were elected and all took their respective oaths of
office.18
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF REP. ATIENZA
During his privilege speech delivered on July 26, 2016, which was a full
Recognized by the Chair, Rep. Atienza inquired as to who would day after all the above-mentioned proceedings had already been
elect the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. commenced and completed, Rep. Lagman questioned Rep. Fariñ as'
interpretation of the Rules.19 Aside from the belated timing of Rep.
REMARKS OF REP. FARINAS Lagman's query, Rep. Suarez aptly points out that the Journal for that
session does not indicate any motion made, seconded and carried to
In reply, Rep. Fariñas referred to Section 8 of the Rules of the correct the entry in the Journal of the previous session (July 25, 2016)
house on membership to the Majority and the Minority. He pertinent to any recording error that may have been made, as to indicate
explained that the Members who voted for the winning candidate that in fact, a protest or objection was raised. 20
for the Speaker shall constitute the Majority and shall elect from
among themselves the Majority Leader. while those who voted Logically speaking, the foregoing circumstances would show that the
against the winning Speaker or did not vote at all shall belong to House of Representatives had effectively adopted Rep. Farinas' proposal
the Minority and would thereafter elect their Minority Leader. anent the new rules regarding the membership of the Minority, as well as
the process of determining who the Minority Leader would be. More
NOMINAL VOTING ON THE NOMINEES FOR SPEAKER OF significantly, this demonstrates the House's deviation from the "legal
bases" of petitioners' claim for entitlement to the reliefs sought before
this Court, namely: (a) the "long-standing tradition" of automatically
THE HOUSE
awarding the Minority Leadership to the second placer in the
Speakership Elections, i.e., Rep. Baguilat; and (b) the rule21 that those who
Thereafter, on motion of Rep. Farinas, there being no objection, abstained in the Speakership Elections should be deemed as independent
the Members proceeded to the election of the Speaker of the Members of the House of Representatives, and thus, they could not have
House of Representatives. The Presiding Officer then directed voted for a Minority Leader in the person of Rep. Suarez. 22 As will be
Deputy Secretary General Adasa to call the Roll for nominal explained hereunder, the deviation by the Lower House from the
voting for the Speaker of the House and requested each Member aforesaid rules is not averse to the Constitution.
to state the name of the candidate he or she will vote for.
Section 16 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:
The result of the voting was as follows:
Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House
For Rep. Pantaleon D. Alvarez: of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its
respective Members.
xxxx
Each house shall choose such other officers as it may deem
For Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr. necessary.

xxxx Under this provision, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be
elected by a majority vote of its entire membership. Said provision also
For Rep. Danilo E. Suarez states that the House of Representatives may decide to have officers other
than the Speaker, and that the method and manner as to how these
xxxx officers are chosen is something within its sole control. 23 In the case of
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona,24 which involved a dispute on the rightful
Abstained Senate Minority Leader during the 11th Congress (1998-2001), this Court
observed that "[w]hile the Constitution is explicit on the manner of
electing x x x [a Speaker of the House of Representative,] it is, however,
xxxx
dead silent on the manner of selecting the other officers [of the Lower
House]. All that the Charter says is that ' [e]ach House shall choose such
With 252 Members voting for Rep. Alvarez (P.), eight voting for other officers as it may deem necessary.' [As such], the method of
Rep. Baguilat, seven voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the
one registering a no vote, the Presiding Officer declared Rep. exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional
Alvarez (P.) as the duly elected Speaker of the House of provision. Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the [House of
Representatives for the 17th Congress. Representatives] itself, not by [the] Court. "25

COMMITTEE ON NOTIFICATION Corollary thereto, Section 16 (3), Article VI26 of the Constitution vests in
the House of Representatives the sole authority to, inter alia, "determine
On motion of Rep. Farinas, there being no objection, the Body the rules of its proceedings." These "legislative rules, unlike statutory
constituted a committee composed of the following Members to laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and obligatoriness during
notify Rep. Alvarez (P.) of his election as Speaker of the House of their effectivity. In fact, they 'are subject to revocation, modification or
Representatives and to escort the Speaker-elect to the rostrum waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them.' Being merely matters
for his oath-taking: Reps. Eric D. Singson, Mercedes K. Alvarez, of procedure, their observance are of no concern to the courts, for said
Fredenil "Fred" H. Castro, Raneo "Ranie" E. Abu, Lucy T. Gomez, rules may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body at will, upon
Nancy A. Catamco, Elenita Milagros "Eileen" Ermita-Buhain, Rose the concurrence of a majority [of the House of Representatives]. "27
Marie "Baby" J. Arenas, Mylene J. Garcia-Albano, Gwendolyn F. Hence, as a general rule, "[t]his Court has no authority to interfere and
Garcia, Marlyn L. PrimiciasAgabas, Emmeline Aglipay-Villar, unilaterally intrude into that exclusive realm, without running afoul of
Sarah Jane I. Elago and Victoria Isabel G. Noel. [C]onstitutional principles that it is bound to protect and uphold x x x.
Constitutional respect and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a
SUSPENSION OF SESSION coequal branch prevents the Court from prying into the internal workings
of the [House of Representatives]."28
Of course, as in any general rule, there lies an exception. While the Court
in taking jurisdiction over petitions questioning an act of the political
departments of government, will not review the wisdom, merits or
propriety of such action, it will, however, strike it down on the ground of
grave abuse of discretion. 29 This stems from the expanded concept of
judicial power, which, under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, expressly "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." Case law decrees
that "[t]he foregoing text emphasizes the judicial department's duty and
power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of government including Congress. It is an innovation
in our political law. As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto
Concepcion:30

[T]he judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or

not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously
as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass
judgment on matters of this nature.31

Accordingly, this Court "will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred
duty and authority to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve
grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases,
committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or department of the
government."32

However, as may be gleaned from the circumstances as to how the House

had conducted the questioned proceedings and its apparent deviation
from its traditional rules, the Court is hard-pressed to find any attending
grave abuse of discretion which would warrant its intrusion in this case.
By and large, this case concerns an internal matter of a coequal, political
branch of government which, absent any showing of grave abuse of
discretion, cannot be judicially interfered with. To rule otherwise would
not only embroil this Court in the realm of politics, but also lead to its
own breach of the separation of powers doctrine. 33 Verily, "[i]t would be
an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for
this Court either to set aside a legislative action as void [only] because [it]
thinks [that] the House has disregarded its own rules of procedure, or to
allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in the
judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in that department
itself."34

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.