Doctrine: Even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within the Court’s
powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred by Article VIII, Section 1, of the
Constitution.
Rep. Raul Daza vs. Rep. Luis Singson, et al.
G.R. No. 86344
December 21, 1989
Facts:
After the congressional elections of May 11, 1987, the House of Representatives (House)
proportionally apportioned its 12 seats in the Commission on Appointments. Petitioner Daza was
among those chosen and was listed as a representative of the Liberal Party. On September 16,
1988, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized, resulting in a political
realignment in the House. As a result, the latter revised its representation in the Commission on
Appointments by withdrawing the seat occupied by petitioner Daza and giving the same to the
newly-formed LDP. The chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the original
members except the petitioner and including therein respondent Singson as the additional
member from the LDP. Petitioner filed the instant petition to challenge his removal from the
Commission on Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the respondent. Petitioner
contended that he cannot be removed from the Commission on Appointments because his
election thereto is permanent. Petitioner’s claim is that the reorganization of the House
representation in the said body is not based on a permanent political realignment because the
LDP is not a duly registered political party and has not yet attained political stability. On the
other hand, respondent argued that the question raised by the petitioner is political in nature and
so beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent also maintained that he has been improperly
impleaded, the real party respondent being the House of Representatives which changed its
representation in the Commission on Appointments and removed the petitioner.
Issues:
Whether or not the removal of petitioner from the Commission on Appointments is
valid. Whether the instant petition involves a justiciable question, which the Court has the duty
to take cognizance thereof, or a political question.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that respondent has been validly elected as a member of the
Commission on Appointments and is entitled to assume his seat in that body pursuant to Article
VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. The COMELEC in an en banc resolution affirmed the
resolution of its First Division, granting the petition of the LDP for registration as a political
party.
The Court ruled that the issue presented is justiciable rather political, involving as it does
the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission
on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in nature,
it would still come within the Court’s powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred
by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution. It is understood that such changes must be
permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving
severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from
one political party to another. The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this matter,
leaving it to be settled by the House of Representatives or the Commission on Appointments as
the bodies directly involved. But as our jurisdiction has been invoked and, more importantly,
because a constitutional stalemate had to be resolved, there was no alternative for us except to
act, and to act decisively. In doing so, of course, we are not imposing our will upon the said
agencies, or substituting our discretion for theirs, but merely discharging our sworn
responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. That is a duty we do not evade, lest we
ourselves betray our oath.
